PDA

View Full Version : .50 Calibre damage effects



kalo456
06-16-2004, 04:20 PM
Hello,

I am addressing this thread to anyone that thinks that the hitting power of .50 calibre machine guns is modelled correctly.

I challenge you to pick up the book: "Aces against Germany" by Eric Hammel.

I am re-reading this book for about the 15th time. I haven't even gotten half way through it and let me tell you the first person accounts of the damage that .50 calibres do is astonishing. I am talking one pass kills, with catastrophic explosions regularly. Pilots talking about how devastating .50 calibres were at convergance range to enemy fighters.

I have been relating this to my in game experiences online. I am a good shot and I almost always hit my target. I attain many kills with .50 calibres in game. Most of the kills come from pilot kills, Control damage, and engine stoppage. I get the occasional flamer from .50 calibres. The occasional wing seperation from .50 calibres. I rarely get the catastrophic gas explosions that are described by the pilots themselves. Where are they?
Also something that bothers me the most, is how I can sneak up on a plane from low 6. Get it all lined up perfect, squeeze the trigger and hit my first burst at convergence range and what happens? Far too often the enemy plane reacts to my fire and breaks hard trailing only a thin line of fuel vapor and or engine smoke. Sometimes I get pilot kills, sometimes I damage him enough that they crash without further intervention. I almost never (I want to say never) blow my target to pieces. If you read books of pilot accounts, this is what happened very often. 1 sneak attack, 1 pass, 1 kill for sure. I can do this in the TA-152 very often, anything with a MK108 and this happens often; one pass one kill.

I have tried out the leaked 2.02 patch. I am all for the decreased dispersion of the .50's. They still don;t seem to have the punch they were reknowned for against fighters. The tighter dispersion is going to hurt most pilots that aren;t excellent marksmen. I think this is good. It gives luftwaffe more of a chance, so no one should complain. The benefit should have been increased damage at convergence range for allied fighters with .50 cals, but I did not get that impression.

I say to Devs and virtual pilots that the damage model for .50 calibres is still off. This is my strong opinion based on many books in my library that have 1st person allied pilot accounts. Someone compared a WW2 fighter to a beer can full of gas with an incredibly powerful engine in front and guns and ammo in the wings. Lots of piping for oil and fuel lines. What do you think happens when you hit an aluminium skinned aircraft with heavy machine gun fire which includes incendiary rounds? It blows up catastrophically. It gets ripped apart.

This is what this game is missing. I say this also for Luftwaffe planes vs. VVS planes as well. I have many books on the subject and they all have 1st person accounts of VVS fighters exploding and going up in flames more often than not.

Who thinks that a WW2 fighter should be that durable? I looked at the beautiful pics someone posted here of the Spit MkXIX cockpit just yesterday. Did anyone notice how tight the cockpit space really was? How many hydraulic lines and other vital systems were packed into such a small space? Imagine just 1 or 2 20mm shells coming in the side of the fuselage and exploding near that stuff. Imagine 20 or 30 50. claibre rounds flying through that cockpit area, tearing things up.

Anyhow this is my informed opinion. I wonder where all the people that say .50's are overmodeled already get their information from.

The only guns I feel may be overmodelled and that is comparitively speaking are the VVS guns. Everybody likes those right? Hmmmmmmm....

I can't wait to see what happens in the official 2.02 release. Here's to a more realistic sim! I hope it makes things better.

9./JG54_Kalo

kalo456
06-16-2004, 04:20 PM
Hello,

I am addressing this thread to anyone that thinks that the hitting power of .50 calibre machine guns is modelled correctly.

I challenge you to pick up the book: "Aces against Germany" by Eric Hammel.

I am re-reading this book for about the 15th time. I haven't even gotten half way through it and let me tell you the first person accounts of the damage that .50 calibres do is astonishing. I am talking one pass kills, with catastrophic explosions regularly. Pilots talking about how devastating .50 calibres were at convergance range to enemy fighters.

I have been relating this to my in game experiences online. I am a good shot and I almost always hit my target. I attain many kills with .50 calibres in game. Most of the kills come from pilot kills, Control damage, and engine stoppage. I get the occasional flamer from .50 calibres. The occasional wing seperation from .50 calibres. I rarely get the catastrophic gas explosions that are described by the pilots themselves. Where are they?
Also something that bothers me the most, is how I can sneak up on a plane from low 6. Get it all lined up perfect, squeeze the trigger and hit my first burst at convergence range and what happens? Far too often the enemy plane reacts to my fire and breaks hard trailing only a thin line of fuel vapor and or engine smoke. Sometimes I get pilot kills, sometimes I damage him enough that they crash without further intervention. I almost never (I want to say never) blow my target to pieces. If you read books of pilot accounts, this is what happened very often. 1 sneak attack, 1 pass, 1 kill for sure. I can do this in the TA-152 very often, anything with a MK108 and this happens often; one pass one kill.

I have tried out the leaked 2.02 patch. I am all for the decreased dispersion of the .50's. They still don;t seem to have the punch they were reknowned for against fighters. The tighter dispersion is going to hurt most pilots that aren;t excellent marksmen. I think this is good. It gives luftwaffe more of a chance, so no one should complain. The benefit should have been increased damage at convergence range for allied fighters with .50 cals, but I did not get that impression.

I say to Devs and virtual pilots that the damage model for .50 calibres is still off. This is my strong opinion based on many books in my library that have 1st person allied pilot accounts. Someone compared a WW2 fighter to a beer can full of gas with an incredibly powerful engine in front and guns and ammo in the wings. Lots of piping for oil and fuel lines. What do you think happens when you hit an aluminium skinned aircraft with heavy machine gun fire which includes incendiary rounds? It blows up catastrophically. It gets ripped apart.

This is what this game is missing. I say this also for Luftwaffe planes vs. VVS planes as well. I have many books on the subject and they all have 1st person accounts of VVS fighters exploding and going up in flames more often than not.

Who thinks that a WW2 fighter should be that durable? I looked at the beautiful pics someone posted here of the Spit MkXIX cockpit just yesterday. Did anyone notice how tight the cockpit space really was? How many hydraulic lines and other vital systems were packed into such a small space? Imagine just 1 or 2 20mm shells coming in the side of the fuselage and exploding near that stuff. Imagine 20 or 30 50. claibre rounds flying through that cockpit area, tearing things up.

Anyhow this is my informed opinion. I wonder where all the people that say .50's are overmodeled already get their information from.

The only guns I feel may be overmodelled and that is comparitively speaking are the VVS guns. Everybody likes those right? Hmmmmmmm....

I can't wait to see what happens in the official 2.02 release. Here's to a more realistic sim! I hope it makes things better.

9./JG54_Kalo

Locust_
06-16-2004, 04:23 PM
Couldnt agree with you more

You ever seen a 50 call rounds then imagine hundreds of them hitting your car or plane I mean come on the dam thing would be toast

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 04:30 PM
the way i look at it is that the rest of the world needs all the help it can get aginst the superior U.S pilots heheheheh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif i mean really this game would be no fun if it was realistic becouse every one would want to fly the U.S planes if thay were just like the real thing hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dammerung
06-16-2004, 04:32 PM
The only thing the .50 works right against is the A6m. You fire 40 rounds into a Zero and it's in pieces. Axis soldiers were SCARED TO DEATH of the American .50 Caliber. German infantry were so scared just by the sound of it, knowing that there was no cover for them, because unless they were behind a tank a .50 cal would go right through anything else. Anyone ever held a .50 cal round? It's HUGE. It has insane penetration, you hit a person with a .50 caliber round in the chest and there will be nothing but pieces. Aluminum and wood aren't that tough. .50s and 20mm rounds are way underpowered, but .50s suffer much more than the 20mm. 6 .50s is probably some of the most killing power you can ever get on some of these aircraft.

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

carguy_
06-16-2004, 04:33 PM
I will tell you my true opinion about this.

I have no trouble with .50 getting more powerfull to the point it`s most realistic.If this all really had happened most of the time in WWII then I`m all for it

but

if Oleg doesn`t want to except that MK108 has been one shot kill then I don`t think he should except even eight fifties one burst kill.


Why do I think you .50 fans get it over the line?Because you try to prove that Tiger tanks were torn apart by .50.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Locust_
06-16-2004, 04:35 PM
Personaly I dont think tiger tanks were shreded by 50s ever

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

kalo456
06-16-2004, 04:39 PM
Oh, I just wanted to state for the record, IMHO,
the only guns below 30mm that I like are the 20mm Hispanos on the Spitfire. Those things hit hard. Everything else doesn't seem realistic to me.

Even the VVS 20mm's if you fire them without support of the UBS heavy machine gun don;t hit that hard either. When I take La-5's up, I sometimes have to plaster 109's and FW's to bring them down.

What gives?

Honestly, I have to ask if the Developers read the same books I read. Have the developers ever fired real weapons at wood or metal targets and seen what happens?

Why is this so damn hard to get right? You have some guns in the game that people mostly unanimously feel are modelled right. Why not go from there and fix the ones that are broke?

We all play this game for the thrill of victories. Destroying air and ground targets. You destroy targets by shooting them. That makes gunnery the 'Raison de etre', the main focus. How could a sim developer not do the proper homework on the reason we play? This is not MS flight sim where we just want to fly around and enjoy proper flight modelling. We need gunnery/damage and flight modelling. Equally important in recreating the experience.

I just re-read what I had first posted and it made me mad so I came back for more.

I address this thread to Oleg and the developers. I dedicate this to you.

I hope they read this.

at the same time:
you have to praise the majority of their work also. I always keep this in mind. I just wonder how they miss on certain very important aspects. How they keep missing in each subsequent patch. How long are they going to dance around fixable issues? How many misses?

9./JG54_Kalo

Bull_dog_
06-16-2004, 04:42 PM
I'll be labeled an ameriwhiner but tough...

The .50's of real life were devestating at convergence...the challenge was hitting your target...not wondering if the guns would kill our target.

The dispersion fix is great and I'm glad to see the change. I believe the .50's are still not as effective as they should be (primarily online I'm speaking). I have the same frustrating online experiences where you sneak up behind a guy and let him have it only to watch him split S and the chase is on....it just wasn't like that in real life. Sure, if an aircraft was hit in a non vulnerable part or out of convergence/with a scattering of bullets they could and would regularly get away....but no single engined fighter could withstand the bullet stream of 6 .50 cal HMG's for more than a split second before bursting into flames, exploding or suffering catastrophic structural failure.

Read reports of pilots giving an aircraft one, two or even three second bursts...most bullets were missing their target... that is the hard part that no sim can model...although FB does the best job I think. You just can't model G's, Fear, Adreniline, turbulence, prop wash, persperation, sun glare, disorientation, fatigue, aircraft systems management and all the other human shortcomings that made "hitting" the target hard.

Plus, as I've stated in other posts, most online pilots who fly regularly have way, way, way more gunnery practice and flight experience than real WWII pilots. Heck I've been flying for about 4 years now...Alot...so imagine the hours I have wracked up.

I guess, in the end, a balance must be struck since certain real life elements can't be modelled. I do believe that (mostly online) the .50's just don't live up to different standards. If I were developing a new game, I'd probably have different Damage Modelling for offline than online to make up for this sort of thing.

When in cockpit on servers, I fly American planes for the challenge and a Fw-190A-8 or 9 if I want to kill enemy pilots. Speed and Mk108's rule in that environment.

VF-19
06-16-2004, 04:44 PM
Just one problem with the book you're quoting. It's biased. Realsitcally, a .50 cal round is only 12.7 mm wide. Go and look at a ruler (metric or imperial doesn't matter), and make a line 12.7 mm or .50 inches long. There's the diameter of your .50 cal round. Now granted, a .50 cal round is fairly long, but realistically, it's not a big round. Plus, WW2 planes don't have many areas you can hit to cause catastrophic damage. Basically, the wings are largely empty space (save the wing spars), which you can fill full of holes, and only cause problems for the pilot who is flying the plane.

Now the other thing is, in this game, I find that the majority of my kills come from a dead six position. the 50 cal round has to travel the majority of the length of the fuselage, and then has to penetrate the pilot armour (if there was any), on top of already travelling the distance from the P-51 to the Bf/Me-109.

Now when I make head on passes, the .50 cal works great. Normally I have smoking engines and perhaps the occasional pilot kill.

The other problem that you're experiencing is that the AI reacts as soon as you pull the trigger, spoiling your shot. So there's nothing wrong with the .50, the AI is operating at the speed of light.

Timex62
06-16-2004, 04:44 PM
IMHO, it has more to do with the DM when attacking from 6 o'clock.

Close to the Edge

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 04:46 PM
Come on guys.. Use basic eucledian geometry and basic phisycs knowledge!

When you double the diamtere of a bullet you get 8 times more mass!! A 30 mm Mk108 is 13.8 times HEAVIER than a .50 bullet!!! Considering EQUAL speeds we get almos 14 times more kinetic energy (and since cannons have farther range, means faster bullets .. so EVEN more damage). Not to mention the amount of explosive you can put inside a cannon shell (the amount of explosive also increses in cubic factor).

IF .50 needs to get more DAMAGE PER BULLET.. than a 30mm should desitegrate a Heinkel 111 in a single SHOT!

Even the P47 DOES not wear enough .50 guns to equal a Mk108 INSTANT firepower.

So the only things you can complain may POSSIBLY.. dispersion and rate of fire...



But this may be completely wrong.. and battleships use HUGE guns because they are pretty.. not because they can be THOUSANDS of times more powerfull than 50000 .50 firing together.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 04:49 PM
Not meant as an offense, but why do the moder aircrafts use 30 or 20 mm cannons?

If the .50 would have been so superior... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

EDIT: They weren't bad actually

jtasker
06-16-2004, 04:52 PM
Playing what I thought was the 02 patch I was pleased with the 50's.. The dispersion at convergence was what I think it should have been all along. Its hard to compare apples to oranges though, so I don't know if the overall hitting power is proper or not.. but from limited play with a 51D20 the "effect" in game was realistic looking.. a saddled up shot of 2-3 seconds at convergence was devastating like it should be....Ground strafing showed a reasonable pattern as well..at roughly convergence or slightly higher the impacts were along the confines of the road I was strafing which closely reflects the actual video I've seen..

Overall I think its a great improvement.. And that says a lot coming from a guy whio flies LW 99% of the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S.
If you did as I did and got the patch without realizing it was not the actual release.. 2.01 installed right over it with no hassles.. You can test it then swap back in the time it takes 2.01 to overwrite the files..

jtasker
06-16-2004, 04:58 PM
Oldman, your physics is flawed.. the muzzle velocity of the 30mm is far slower than the 50. And the rate of fire of the 30mm is slower than a single 50, let alone 6 or 8 in battery.
The Mk18 was designed to destroy with gaseous expansion in an enclosed space within the target (hence the slight fuse delay to allow penetration. The 50 is totally different, but extremely lethal in its own way.. higher volume etc.

The 50's using the "leaked" patch had what I believe is a very close approximation of realistic "effect" What I mean is I have no idea if the 50 projectiles have the exact hitting power per unit, but the overall result of a burst of various length REALLY looked good.. I'm not sure if only the dispersion was corrected, or the hitting was adjusted as well.. but it looks darned good right now, and I fly 109's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

kalo456
06-16-2004, 05:00 PM
Hey VF-19,

You're wrong man. This my opinion, but I know it. I have a library of over 50 books on WW2 air combat. I prefer 1st person accounts so most are of that variety. I share books with a group of friends that enjoy the topic. I have read well over 100 books on the subject.

VF-19, what do you think sits behind the pilot on alot of planes? A GASTANK. Perhaps in the wing roots, A GASTANK. Hitting that and exploding it from 6 oclock slight low should be no problem.

You're statement about a .50 calibre round travelling from the tail of a fighter and not damaging anything is crazy. Have you seen what happes when bullet richochet and hit things at glancing angles? Multiply that by 40. 40 .50 calibre rounds hitting in a tight area of aluminum will destroy its structural integrity when you consider the aerodynamic forces that are inposed on it in high speed flight. Pilots described 'shredding' enemy aircraft with a well aimed 2 to 3 second burst of .50 caliber machine gun rounds. what does this mean to me? I can imagine every access door being blown off, horizontal stabilizers being sawed off, tail sections being torn off, wings collapsing, engines mechanically self destructing, ammuniton bay doors blowing off, ammunition detonating in wings, etc......

Alos VF-17 I only fly online. This is not vs. a.i. that I speak. I am a sneaky bastard online. I come at you at 750kph from the direction of your own airfield and hit you before you even considered someone behind you. I am talking about watching a target grow in my sight as I close until it is at a little further than convergence range and hammering with all my .50's. Too often the enemy plane just breaks hard after being hit for .5 to 1 seconds at a far slower airspeed so I can;t even try to stay with it. Do you know what 1 second of fire from 6 .50 calibres should do to a 109 from slightly low and behind? I can;t say I do either, but I read abou tit all the time and buddy, those planes don;t get home. Those planes don;t require a second and third pass to finish em'. They are TOAST, SCRAPMETAL, DEAD.

How do you consider professional pilots combat reports biased? You are discreditting there profession to say something like that.

Kalo

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 05:06 PM
no kidding a canon round is stronger than a 50. round but we are talking one mabie two cannons vs 6 to 8 50. and the 50.s fireing at a much faster rate.and you dont need a nuclear warhead to puch a whole through a engine block and a bullet wont loose much power travling the short distence from an acceptable range.if planes had real armor like a tank or a battle ship "du" then yes the 50 wouldnt do it.but thay dont. a 50.cal has more than enough power to go through anything carried on a plane in that time. now thay are makeing atack choppers and such out of new types of material that give much better protection. just as a side not i have seen a modern 50. rifle shot through a small block chevy and it was not an armor percing round. of course thats not saying much sense it was a chevy moter hehehehe a 22. woulda done it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif . as far as in game right now id say up close were most of your shots hit its prety close just the rounds spread way to much but hopefully thats been fixed.

Red_Storm
06-16-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
The only thing the .50 works right against is the A6m. You fire 40 rounds into a Zero and it's in pieces. Axis soldiers were SCARED TO DEATH of the American .50 Caliber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh... no they weren't. I don't see how you guys think the .50 was "the" most effective gun ever produced. The Russian 12.6mm. machine-gun was much more effective. Get over the fact that not everything form the US has to always be the best. The truth is that in the second world war the Americans were incapable of producing a working 20mm gun. All the models they had jammed after a few rounds, therefor they resorted to machine-guns, which were less powerful. In this game at the moment the M2 .50, compared to other weapons, is much too powerful. One or two hits renders your plane useless and makes you easy pickings for the American planes. True, the .50's were powerful, but the MG151/20E was more powerful.

Also, I for the life of me can't figure it out how you guys think it's challenging to fly those planes with those guns? Crippling a fighter in one pass etc.

All of the whining has sadly made the American fighters way too, well, good. I used to love taking the P51 and P47 for a spin, but right now I just get bored after six minutes of flight...

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 05:08 PM
So the .50 range should be greater then 30mm one. O gave a fast search and found references that point to a slightly greater range for the Mk 108.


And the 108 is not designed to damage by pure gaseous expansion.... that was an EXTRA effect I SAW a Mk108 bullet in front of me in a museum.. and beleive me.. that thing is big enough to to bring a house wall down WITHOUT the warhead inside it. No alluminium plane would even bother to stop the bullet in its way!!!



But IF i am wrong and .50 is much faster than 30mm(notice in my post I speak about INSTANT power.. not including rate of fire) the .50 should also have a much greater range in FB.


Anyway I am still looking for precise muzlee speed of both weapons.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2004, 05:11 PM
i think Luthier made also a very worth to read comment about that:

"luthier1
PTO Crew Chief
posted 20-05-04 16:15
I think this debacle is a case of people having absolutely unrealistic expectations more than anything. I really have a feeling that many vocal posters on the .50 cal issue won't be satisfied until they can blow up any plane with a half-a-second high deflection burst.

Read up actual encounter reports, listen to some pilot interviews, watch lots of gun camera footage and not just the dramatic bits that get reused in every other documentary. You needed to aim well, try to hit a vulnerable spot, and keep your target in the sights for a good period of time.

In most encounter reports you'll see pilots mention at least a 2-3 second burst. Count with me - "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand". That's a three second burst, during which you need to keep the target in your sights at convergence and have your rounds hitting the target. If you expect to consistently destroy your targets with anything less, then I'm afraid PF won't be a satisfying experience for you.

The reason the US used .50 cals on most of their planes is because first and foremost we had well trained pilots with excellent aerial gunnery skills. They were expected to keep firing at the target long enough to ensure its destruction, and overall reliability and large ammo load on the M2s ensured their ability to attack multiple targets in a single sortie.

THAT's why the M2 was used so extensively in WWII - not because it was a wonder weapon capable of destroying any target with no effort on the pilot's part, which seems to be what so many people expect.

Dispersion is a pretty minor factor in the large scale of things. Whether or not it gets finetuned you still need to be a good shot, and work to keep the target in your sights for more than a quarter of a second in order to get kills. That's my last ever comment on the .50 cal issue."

how often YOU counted 3 seconds while firing ?

BS87
06-16-2004, 05:11 PM
Redstorm, please show me a track where 1-2 .50s completly disable a plane, or even take it out of the fight. Even if you do, i could argue it's a one time occurance.

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Anyway I am still looking for precise muzlee speed of both weapons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm waiting too...

EDIT: Whow, the .243 Winchester Magnum has about 1000 m/s Vo, it has to tear apart any plane... l¶l

JG53Frankyboy
06-16-2004, 05:20 PM
you ever saw this side ?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

nice infos

Hoarmurath
06-16-2004, 05:21 PM
yes Oleg, the B29s were armed with M2 machineguns, be sure...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/bombanagasaki.jpg

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 05:22 PM
Found speed of the german
20mm 830m/s at 900rpm
30mm (mk108) 600m/s at 600rpm to 850rpm (depends time of production and sub models)
30mm (mk103) 750 m/s (could not find rate of fire)

has anyone found speed for the .50 ? I found nothing reliable

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

HexAngel
06-16-2004, 05:24 PM
Kalo, have you ever tested the power of the .50es in arcade mode? I just made a very quick test. First victim was a Bf109K4 that lost its tail after 20 hits, the second k4 burned after about 40 hits and finally a FW190A8 lost its wing after 14 to 18 hits.. All shots taken from the dead six. I guess not the power of the bullets is the problem but getting all to hit..
Btw tested with V 2.02 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
----------------------------
http://home.mnet-online.de/hexangel/Pics/HexAngelv1.jpg
It's too late now to get out of sight..

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 05:25 PM
gave a look at previous post link.. it seems more concise. SO lets take this as parameter.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

LuftLuver
06-16-2004, 05:26 PM
Kalo,

Agree with you 100%.

Tried the 2.02, and while the dispersion is better the hitting power is nil against all but zeros.

It's a hugely important and significant WW2 weapon, let's get it right UBI folks! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Red_Storm
06-16-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
Redstorm, please show me a track where 1-2 .50s completly disable a plane, or even take it out of the fight. Even if you do, i could argue it's a one time occurance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may appear as if it takes long for the plane to go down, but when I'm bounced in my Dora and a few rounds hit my plane, it's bye-bye for the Dora. When a lone, stray .50 M2 round hits your wing, you're doomed. Turning, rolling even climbing become impossible.

Another thing I've noticed (and tested with my very gifted team leader!) is that a Bf-109G-14 can't outturn a P-51 on the deck. I don't know how correct this is, but the Bf-109G-14 was one of the most manoueverable of the 109 family.

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:29 PM
You will get this with the new patch.

When I was testing the new .50 cal guns, all I can say is "Wow, thats just like the guncam footage from WWII!"

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-16-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:

Tried the 2.02, and while the dispersion is better the hitting power is nil against all but zeros.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep trying it Luftluver. I tore a 190 (Engine flame and wing root failure) with a good burst of P-51D .50 cal. 109s went smokey with even a modest hit. I also saw no evidence of reduced 20mm effectiveness in the German weapons. Spend more time evaluating the "patch" and then post again please, I will too.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you ever saw this side ?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

nice infos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but interesting infos... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:32 PM
Browning .50 M2 12.7 x 99 (48.5 g) 750 rpm 870 m/s 30 kg

MG 151/20 20 x 82 (115 g) 740 rpm 710 m/s 42 kg

MK 108 30 x 90RB (312 g) 600 rpm 505 m/s 60 kg



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Found speed of the german
20mm 830m/s at 900rpm
30mm (mk108) 600m/s at 600rpm to 850rpm (depends time of production and sub models)
30mm (mk103) 750 m/s (could not find rate of fire)

has anyone found speed for the .50 ? I found nothing reliable

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-16-2004, 05:36 PM
I have 850 rpm with the unsynchronized .50 cal M2 with a muzzle volocity of 880mps.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 05:40 PM
Just found other data that differs a lot.. but think is not good start a stupid flame war here (since differences my arise depending on who took the measures (russians, germans or americans)

Anyway... youi looked the hispano and Shvak cannos datas? These are THE WEAPONS!!!!

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 05:42 PM
@Gibbage

very funny posting, really.

Would you be able to post the important things?

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:43 PM
ROF varried GREATLY between 1 .50 cal to another. Even off the same production line. Its amazign that this is simulated in-game because guns on a P-38 or P-47 run out at differant times. Cool effect. 750 was "average" were 850 was best, and 650 was worst. I did a LOT of research when fighting my .50 cal battle. Be sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I have 850 rpm with the unsynchronized .50 cal M2 with a muzzle volocity of 880mps.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 05:46 PM
I already mentioned: the .243 Winchester Magnum has about 1000 m/s Vo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EDIT: ROF and Vo aren't everything about a gun...

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 05:52 PM
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PunicaDUSK:
@Gibbage

very funny posting, really.

Would you be able to post the important things?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 06:00 PM
It's almost the same page that JG53Frankyboy posted, with the little difference that
Q and M are missing...

But hold on... the 108 didn't have an explosive part...

Surely, the .50 had it too... superior to the 108 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

EDIT: I would like to know WHAT exactly makes the .50 superior!

Monza27
06-16-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link Gibbage, a very good read.

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 06:10 PM
red storm i havent heard any one say the 50. was the all time best at least not in this thread. and i havent heard any one say every thing from the u.s is the best. i dont think thats the case how ever if i beleved all the bull iv read on this fourm from the past year or so i wouldnt beleave the U.S would be capable of even attaining flight at all lol.the fact is most post aginst the 50.s compairs them to cannons round for round but as iv said thats not the case. IMO it kinda balances out in one plane you have a couple of cannons firing each shot that hit doing more dmg but in another plane you have 3 and 4 times the guns fireing alot more rounds doing less dmg per hit but you get ALOT more hits. the end result is very simular. and the advantge would be situational.

faustnik
06-16-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PunicaDUSK:
I already mentioned: the .243 Winchester Magnum has about 1000 m/s Vo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EDIT: ROF and Vo aren't everything about a gun...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you need projectile weight to get a better picture. Time to break out the old chart.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/WeaponsChart.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you ever saw this side ?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

nice infos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, Gibb is just right! But this Site is just *****!

GOOD NIGHT!

IV_JG51_Prien
06-16-2004, 06:12 PM
Just for those who are curious..

Straight out of a tech manual for a Browning H2 Machine Gun (I'm in the Navy, and work in the ships Armory).

Cyclic rate of fire: 450-500rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 2,930fps
Max effective range: 2,000 yards
Max range: 7,400 yards

The H2 will chew through 100rnds of ammo in roughly 12 seconds of sustained fire.

http://www.jg51.net/downloads/squadbanner.bmp

Red_Storm
06-16-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
red storm i havent heard any one say the 50. was the all time best at least not in this thread. and i havent heard any one say every thing from the u.s is the best. i dont think thats the case how ever if i beleved all the bull iv read on this fourm from the past year or so i wouldnt beleave the U.S would be capable of even attaining flight at all lol.the fact is most post aginst the 50.s compairs them to cannons round for round but as iv said thats not the case. IMO it kinda balances out in one plane you have a couple of cannons firing each shot that hit doing more dmg but in another plane you have 3 and 4 times the guns fireing alot more rounds doing less dmg per hit but you get ALOT more hits. the end result is very simular. and the advantge would be situational.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and there's the problem. If I take my FW-190A-8 out (which has an armament of two 13mm's and four 20mm's, just as many guns as the Americans fighters and all of bigger calibre, the 20mm's even have the same RPM as the m2 .50!) and shoot a target, I find it's more easily crippled with six 12.6mm's than it is with four 20mm's and two 13mm's and that's just twisted.

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 06:18 PM
Well the .50 cal is superior to the Mk-108 in SOME WAYS. Accuracy, distance, muzzle velocity, ammo load, armor penetration ability, disperision. I would rather have 6 .50 cal's in a fighter-2-fighter dogfight then 1 30MM Mk-108 and 2 puny 7.62's any day. Much more likley to score the killing hit. Especiall in 2.02 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Mk-108 was a superior bomber killer. A pack of .50's was a superior fighter killer. 20MM was between the two. Good for both. jack of all trades, but a master of none.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PunicaDUSK:
It's almost the same page that JG53Frankyboy posted, with the little difference that
Q and M are missing...

But hold on... the 108 didn't have an explosive part...

Surely, the .50 had it too... superior to the 108 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

EDIT: I would like to know WHAT exactly makes the .50 superior!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 06:55 PM
Just made some testa and have to agree that .50 is modeled at least weaker than german 13mm guns... so I must agree that a little bit more firepower would be fair.. if compared to those. BUT.. 20mm and mk108 are also WEAK when compared to 13mm (don´t know if you get what I mean)

But no.. .50 do not need an OVERHELMING increase in firepower... just a small one.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

ImpStarDuece
06-16-2004, 06:58 PM
This is a tired old debate but i'm going to wade in on it anyway...

The Browining M2 .50 cal (12.7 mm)

MV 690-890m/s (b/w 850 - 890 in the MOST common published figure)
Round weight 112g
Projectile (bullet) weight 43g
Percentage HE (API) 2% (0.9g)

So what we have is a medium calibre machine gun with relatively high velocity, medium to high ROF (depending on cyclical) with an excellent ballistic shape and profile (the 'boat-tail' shape of the M2 AP and API round is well known, standard US Heavy MG practice calls for its use as a long range (2-2.5km) indirect fire, area suppressive weapon by spraying a 'beat zone' using a high arcing ballistic profile).

As a fighter weapon the M2 is a good serise of compromises. The AP value of the round is good (pentrates 10 -15mm of steel at 500m) but the API (Armour Percing Incidinary) has minimal HE content, meaning reduced damage after initial penetration. Compared this to the UB which has a heavier round with more than double the content of HE (0.9g vs 2.0g) and the M2 doesn't come off too well. Furthermore the M2 weighed 29kg, compared with the UBs 25kg (and the 108s 60kg), making it comparatively heavy for a weapon of that calibre. This was compounded with the USAAF practice of mounting batteries of 6 to eight .50s on fighters.

So the 'fifty', with a typical mix of AP, API and APT (Armour Piercing Tracer) puts out about 13 rounds a second (not the best or worst performer) with minimal HE content (the UB and MG 131 both fire rounds with higher HE contents) into a fixed point of space. The damage it delivers should be significant but unless there is a convergence of rounds onto a particular point it will not be catastrophic, even when arranged in batteries of 6-8. Unlike a 108 round where a hit on an unarmoured surface will kill or cripple a fighter a strike from multiple .50s will not always result in significant or even noticable damage.

There are multiple stories of US pilots unloading half or even all of their ammo into 110s and 190s and watching thier badly damaged enemy limp away. Gabby Gabreski, C.O. of the famous 56th FS, recalls when he chased a 190 over Holland from 30,000ft to the deck, sprayed all his ammo at the 190 and watched the pliot get away. He later calculated that even if only 10% of his round had hit the 190 survived over 200 .50 cal hits.

Yes, the fifty can do catastrophic damage. Engine blowups, fueltank explosions, wing damage, tails cut off, control surface seperation. These are all recorderd by USAAF fighter pilots as result fo .50 cal strikes.

I think that the damage inflicted .50 is modelled reasonably. The legendry 'ma duece' got its reputation because it was what was used at the time. There were better fighter armaments out there, there were even better guns of the same calibre. Its reputation stems from the fact that the USAAF had a superior kill rate in the air in both theaters by the end of the war. Ergo they must have had better pilots, planes and guns. But if you look at the facts the .50 is not that great. It was what they had, it worked, and worked very well, but it should not be viewed as a weapon of instant doom for any enemy fighter.

Dispersion is another issue altogether. If the reports for the leaked 2.02 are true in any way Gibbage has done some fine work, and excellent service to the community, in rendering the .50s closer to their historical model of accuracy and effectiveness.

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

[This message was edited by ImpStarDuece on Thu June 17 2004 at 05:56 AM.]

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 07:01 PM
redstorm if thats the case then i agree with you 100% i personally dont fly anything but the U.S ENOUGH to make a statement on there guns effect what little i do fly them when i shoot i use only one set of guns at a time like with the p38 i eather shoot the 50s or the 20mm cannon hardly ever all at once. when i fly like the fw190a8 wich is my fav. non U.S plane i find the guns efective but i dont know how effective vs the 50s. all i can comment on is that 50s in game 2.01 at very close rang is just what i would expect.ill load up f.b and pay close att. to the a8 in regardes to fire power. now one of the points i was tring to make was that if you smack a fly with a news papper or a sludge hammer the effect is still the same were talking about ww2 fighter planes not wingcommander starfighters with shields. there is nothing a ww2 plane is made of that would stand up to a 50. cal now if you wanna talk anti tank then id go with the germen or russian set ups but eather way aginst a fighter it should be lights out at least up close were you can get a good hit on him

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 07:05 PM
Do you know how was the ration of HE bullets used?

I read once that the german 13mm in later 109 used onde HE each 3 bullets.


This HE stuff can really explain why of current behavior of .50


Also.. is there any difference between explosives used in american and german HE shells?

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

NegativeGee
06-16-2004, 07:15 PM
What ImpStarDuece said, I think that is a pretty sensible appraisal of the WW2 M2 Browning as an aircraft weapon.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 07:23 PM
ok i just tested the a8 and the p51d's fire power it was a simple test.i used 4 freindy fw190a8s and engaged them from the rear with both a p51d and a 190a8 converg was set to 200.0 and i didnt open fire till i was .30 from the targets i retested 4 times and each time it was pretty much the same the a8 was able to down the planes faster from the rear and slightly to each side than the p51. wich is what i would expect. now this was up close and the planes were not tring to evade. just from what i just did id say at that range every thing seemed about right i did notice on one test i hit the fw190 a number of time right in the engine with the 50.s and it had no effect but that may have just been a one time chance thing.i know the test was very simple but like my daddy always said "#@#$ &^%&^%*& you stupid little #%$#%$ just hit the %^$&%^ nail with the hammer"lol

Huxley_S
06-16-2004, 07:30 PM
According to the website link posted by FrankyBoy:

"As the war progressed, aircraft were modified with more effective armour and better self-sealing tanks. The US Navy, for example, considered its aircraft well protected against .50 fire, and even 20 mm rounds.[68] German and British fighters were designed to be protected against .50 fire from the front, and 20 mm fire from the rear. However, the .50 remained a reasonably effective weapon against fighters and the lighter bombers, if enough guns were installed; usually six in American-built fighters."

In the game they are reasonably effective. They aren't the super gun that some people think they should be, but they're ok.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 07:44 PM
im not tring to dispute that but i cant see how. every ww2 prop plane iv ever seen has no armor infront of or around the engine and that with the exeption of the pilot is what i would be worried about also if thay were so well protected why were so many shot down.it might be one of those " we say its safe so it must be so" kinda things ever see the face of some one when thay see just how effective a bullet prof vest is when hit with a 357mag round lol. its a codaic moment i can tell you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

OldMan____
06-16-2004, 07:47 PM
Never saw a single bullet proof vest that advertised to be imune to such kind of weapon.

Same way no plane in WW2 even dreamed of being protected from a MK103

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 07:51 PM
youd be suprised what thay tell some of these cops around were i live.

RedDeth
06-16-2004, 09:35 PM
TWO POINTS

number one: in 2.02 the dispersion was tightened up by an order of ten it seems. looks laser like. and when you hit planes now say frienlies and compare to close range hits against the 2.01 it becomes apparent that you hit with 4 times the bullets or more. but damage is similar. maybe a bit better in 2.02

in other words they have decreased the damage each round does on the 50cal in 2.02 . compare the two yourself. its true. you hit more but a bit less damage now....i can see oleg smiling now.

point number 2: all planes are probably undermodelled in damage the guns do. the 50s should most often shred a plane if on target before a pilot can realize it and dodge. if caught unawares.this is not the case now. in 2.02 planes can still evade after getting bounced. with good aim.

most guns on most planes should put an enemy out of action. this isnt the case in this sim.

it was in janes world war two fighters. that game was arcadey and fms were sub par but one thing they got right. just about any plane that got a solid burst on you whether a fw or stang or jug or spit or 109 or P38 will kill you or kill your plane.

THAT is why all the arguments . everyone is correct. the pro 50cal guys say they should shred planes more...correct. and the heavy cannon guys say their cannons should do more damage than the 50. true also.

solution make all guns more powerful across the board. this would make the sim much more realistic and make everyone a more careful pilot. just like in real life.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
TWO POINTS

number one: in 2.02 the dispersion was tightened up by an order of ten it seems. looks laser like. and when you hit planes now say frienlies and compare to close range hits against the 2.01 it becomes apparent that you hit with 4 times the bullets or more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now it looks like most of the other machineguns in the game.

Parity has been achieved , nothing more. The .50 is now not much different that other 50's apart from the reason that US aircraft carried more of them.

Try the spit with the 50 cal or the p39/63

very similar to other two gun equipped craft.

RedDeth
06-16-2004, 09:44 PM
rgr that menthol but to further your point 6 machine guns are firing simultaneously. most planes only have 2 machine guns.

these guns especially the jug with 8 should shred planes as easy as a fw does.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 09:49 PM
I know what you mean though.

If the jug had 8 UBS instead of the brownings, I cant even imagine how powerful that would be.

Im very glad for the dispersion being fixed, but would be disapointed if the power was reduced.(which it looks like significantly)

Xiolablu3
06-16-2004, 10:01 PM
I'm sorry but the .50's were NOT 'all that'

Read accounts from Sabre Pilots vs Mig 15's in Korea. ALWAYS complaining about the Migs 20mm Cannon compared to their puny .50 cals.

Oh, and anyone who believes the 10 to 1 kill ratio is just kidding themselves.

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 10:02 PM
who cares about the guns i demand thay model air freashers man after a few missions in my jug that thing gets a little smelly. i would like wild berry but will settel for coconut. untill then i shall put my smelly socks in gibbs plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 10:10 PM
and how do you know thay were kidding them selves? also by then jets were moveing alot faster and it was harder to get in sustaned blast. how ever iv heard many korian pilots complain that it was very hard to hit the sabers with there cannons and how accuret the fire from the sabers were. i imagine it would come down to personal experiences.ill tell you what come on over to florida well go grab some 50.s from moddy air base strapm onto my tuck and ill give ya a 10 sec head start afterwords we can continue this.lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 10:11 PM
TOTALLY differant war there bud. Jet aircraft were a LOT more damage resistant then WWII aircraft due to the stresses of faster flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I'm sorry but the .50's were NOT 'all that'

Read accounts from Sabre Pilots vs Mig 15's in Korea. ALWAYS complaining about the Migs 20mm Cannon compared to their puny .50 cals.

Oh, and anyone who believes the 10 to 1 kill ratio is just kidding themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Oh, and anyone who believes the 10 to 1 kill ratio is just kidding themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id say more to do with pilot quality, and yes id believe it

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 10:18 PM
o in my reply above id never do that .....straping them on would decres accu. id use rivets

LuftLuver
06-16-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:

Tried the 2.02, and while the dispersion is better the hitting power is nil against all but zeros.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep trying it Luftluver. I tore a 190 (Engine flame and wing root failure) with a good burst of P-51D .50 cal. 109s went smokey with even a modest hit. I also saw no evidence of reduced 20mm effectiveness in the German weapons. Spend more time evaluating the "patch" and then post again please, I will too.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Faust,

You know, I had replied to one other 50cal (leaked patch) thread and went back and deleted ti later. I am going to wait for the real patch and then evaluate that, lol.

This is kind of like the poor 109 souls who have had to learn new FMs with each patch release.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BennyMoore
06-16-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
Get over the fact that not everything form the US has to always be the best. The truth is that in the second world war the Americans were _incapable_ of producing a working 20mm gun. All the models they had jammed after a few rounds, therefor they resorted to machine-guns, which were less powerful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me? Then please enlighten me; what is that thing on the nose of the P-38? A bolt action three hundred Winchester Magnum?

I do hope that you're not serious when you say that all of the American planes are "too good." Perhaps you are right about the P-51 - I never fly it, as I share your opinion of it. But the Jug? Ahahahahahaha! I've only been truly beaten by a Jug once, and that was about half a year ago, when I was still quite a miserable pilot. Now, if I were to face that same pilot, I feel one hundred percent sure that he would not win, and that at best he might survive to fly another day.

The P-40 E, which is my second favorite plane, may be overmodelled. My success rate in it does not match up with the things I've read about it being clumsy. However, it is hugely undermodelled in durability, as I've read over and over about its rugged durability, and in the game it's as delicate as the Zero.

But the P-38 is so hugely undermodelled it's not funny. Richard Bong, the highest scoring American ace (all of his kills were made in the P-38) would have a thing or two to say to you if he were still alive. You people who, when told that the P-38 was called by the Germans "Devil with the Cleft Tail," claim that the P-38 was feared for its ground attack capabilities are simply incredible. Your ignorance is astounding!

The fact of the matter is, if the P-38 sucked in real life as bad as it does in the game, Richard Bong would have been dead long before he made his first kill. And don't you dare tell me to use different tactics.

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 10:28 PM
"The truth is that in the second world war the Americans were _incapable_ of producing a working 20mm gun. All the models they had jammed after a few rounds, therefor they resorted to machine-guns, which were less powerful."

would have to be awarded "most dumb **** theory" award for history.

If this was seriously the case, they would have just licenced built other 20mm guns in the US.

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 10:29 PM
try useing the 93 octane gas i find my p38 runs much better on that. lol but really the bigst thing i think thats wrong with the 38 is seems like if some one gives it a dirty look you lose control cabels or guns jam not as bad in 2.01 as it was in 2.00 i think but still happens alot more than in other planes. and some pepole im not nameing names would be very happy if all U.S planes only did 100mph and had hobbits straped to the wings shooting rubber band lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BennyMoore
06-16-2004, 11:03 PM
Actually, I think the P-38 damage model is pretty fair, although I have nothing to base that on. I know what you mean about every time someone fires, something gives, but that's because the P-38 is such a large target compared to most fighters. It's not much longer but it's a lot wider and therefore easier to hit.

The biggest problem with the P-38 is that no matter what kind of pilot you are, you can't be a successful one. The P-38 in this game is an easy kill. That's the end of the story. When I am flying my BF-109 G-2 and I see a P-38, I rejoice in my good fortune, for my kill is assured. When I am in my P-38 and I see any other plane, I weep for my death is equally assured. The only planes that the P-38 has any sort of chance against are the ridiculously slow ones that no one ever flies, like the Brewster and the I-16, which the P-38 never had to fight in real life. All of the planes that the P-38 fought (and beat) in real life are impossible to beat with the game's P-38. I'm even allowing for the P-38 having an altitude advantage. It still doesn't do ****. The P-38 in this game is a very easy kill. It cannot outturn a single fighter in the game, and it cannot outrun very many of them. In addition, it is missing one of its largest advantages that it has in real life - the lack of torque. The P-38 in the game has just as much, if not more, torque as the next plane.

Gibbage, I'd like to hear your take on the P-38 flight model. What say you? Is it accurate? Is it overmodelled? Is it undermodelled?

I challenge any of you who claim that the P-38 has been given justice by the game to prove it to me in the House of Odin. I'm a slightly better than average pilot, and I'll be flying a BF-109 or an FW-190. I'll start my engine and taxi to the runway, then I shall wait until you have been airborne for three minutes, providing that you do not fly straightway to my base and shoot me as I idle on the runway.

HellToupee
06-16-2004, 11:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
rgr that menthol but to further your point 6 machine guns are firing simultaneously. most planes only have 2 machine guns.

these guns especially the jug with 8 should shred planes as easy as a fw does.

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iwouldnt aim for 190 firepower, 6 guns 4 20mms and 2 heavy machine guns. the 190-a4 has a greater weight of fire than 8 .50s + explosive rounds and thats with mgff outboard cannons.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Dammerung
06-16-2004, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
The only thing the .50 works right against is the A6m. You fire 40 rounds into a Zero and it's in pieces. Axis soldiers were SCARED TO DEATH of the American .50 Caliber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh... no they weren't. I don't see how you guys think the .50 was "the" most effective gun ever produced. The Russian 12.6mm. machine-gun was much more effective. Get over the fact that not everything form the US has to always be the best. The truth is that in the second world war the Americans were _incapable_ of producing a working 20mm gun. All the models they had jammed after a few rounds, therefor they resorted to machine-guns, which were less powerful. In this game at the moment the M2 .50, _compared to other weapons_, is much too powerful. One or two hits renders your plane useless and makes you easy pickings for the American planes. True, the .50's were powerful, but the MG151/20E was more powerful.

Also, I for the life of me can't figure it out how you guys think it's challenging to fly those planes with those guns? Crippling a fighter in one pass etc.

All of the whining has sadly made the American fighters way too, well, good. I used to love taking the P51 and P47 for a spin, but right now I just get bored after six minutes of flight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry, did you say something? That wasn't about Americans not producing 20mms. This wasn't about Russians having a superior machinegun. This wasn't about the MG151/20. Don't try and change the subject. 6 .50 caliber machineguns Will tear a fighter size object into ribbons. Watch some Guncam footage. Just a few dead six .50 shots is MORE Than enough to send any Jap or Gerry to the ground in a fireball. There was footage of a B-17 gunner shooting at a 190, and he hit it as it was pulling away, and it exploded so violently from one well placed .50 caliber round. Who ever said the .50 was the most effective gun ever produced? All of FB's guns are underpowered now, 'cept maybe Hispanos and ShVAKs. 2 20mm Cannons fire a much smaller volume of fire than 6 .50 calibers. The 20mm will punch large holes in an aircraft, if they hit something important, the plane goes down. The .50s turn whatever they are aimed at into swiss cheese. A 20mm round can penetrate. A .50 can penetrate just as well if not better due to higher muzzle velocity. DU and Incindiary .50 rounds are even better. The MG151/20 and other 20mm cannons are for a short burst knockout punch. The .50s are for a 2-3 second burst that shreds the target completely. .50s fire about 4 maybe 5 times faster than any cannon... so you have 25 .50 rounds within the span of a fraction of a second vs about 5 20mm rounds... The .50 may do less damage per round, but there's a lot more of them. Why do you think the P-47 was so great in the ground attack role- Here's a hint. It's not cause It could carry bombs. And it's certainly not because All Americans are "stupid" and think that all .50s are the greatest gun ever. If they were the greatest thing an Aircraft would have, they wouldnt be swapped for 4x 20mms on an F-86. They wouldnt be Swapped for the M61A1 Vulcan that is standard on fighter aircraft today.

They cripple fighters in one pass. So does the MG151/20. They both should completely destroy their target. It's not like the movies where an aircraft can absorb that kind of punishment. Yes, Wildcats and IL-2s have been reported to take massive punishment. Saburo Sakai himself said he fired 500-600 7.62 rounds into a Wildcat before he had to use his 20mms to take it down. 7.62 doesn't dish out much punishment. Compare it to a human body. Hit it with a 7.62 round, it'll penetrate deep and destroy most everything near the impact area. A .50 makes body parts explode. It'll blow a hole in your chest a foot wide. It'll knock through an Engine block. A 20mm hits a human and there wont be anything left. So yes, round for round the 20mm is better. The volume of fire when dealing with aircraft is key- There's so much .50 fire that you're bound to hit something important. 20mms will blow large chunks off, pieces of wing, gaping holes in the fuselage, but lethality will be reduced without hits to wing roots and engines, which is harder to achieve with a smaller volume of fire.

This thread isn't a 20mm vs 50 effectiveness war. The .50s in game are about only 75% or less of what they should be, as are many other weapons. The M2 machinegun is still one of the best, and was steadily improved upon(Later models, M3, etcetera[as is the MG42, so don't go off about Americans not knowing anything]

Conclusion: Machine guns are designed to shred their targets, with great penetration. Cannons deliver HE rounds that detonate to destroy an aircraft. In a 3 second burst of .50, accuratly fired, There will be so many holes in an aircraft that It will be hardly recognizable. In a 3 second burst of 20mm, much harder put in place, a plane will likely be in 2 pieces. Hit it with a 37mm or 30mm and there's nothing left. The .50s shouldn't be the most deadly thing in the game, but they should be the most deadly machinegun, if only due to the number that are placed on an A/C at once. You're jumping to conclusions to try and bash Americans. Don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I'm sorry but the .50's were NOT 'all that'

Read accounts from Sabre Pilots vs Mig 15's in Korea. ALWAYS complaining about the Migs 20mm Cannon compared to their puny .50 cals.

Oh, and anyone who believes the 10 to 1 kill ratio is just kidding themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's a 10.4 to 1 (rounded) kill ratio. You know why Sabre pilots complained? The Mig had a 37 and 2 23mms. You realize how much power that is? The MiG-15 is much more tough than ANY PURE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT IN WWII. Deflection shooting in a Jet is totally different than in a prop, the speeds are doubled, so you almost have to shoot at dead six unless you have a computer (Appears around the time of the F-8, I guess). A 1-shot kill is important in a Jet because you can't just latch yourself onto a bandit's six. You have a firing window of about 2 seconds- as opposed to about 5-10 on a prop. Every kill a Sabre pilot made took an incredible amount of work- There was a story about 16 F-86s attacking a single La-9. The La would simply go into a tight turn every time a Sabre made a run, they couldnt keep up. It wasn't until a pilot who trained against F-51s made his 2nd run that he slowed down enough to tear it to pieces. And for proof, take a YP-80 and dive from 10000. See how far( and how fast you get). Not past 700mph. Not even close. Take an F-86 in a slight dive. Supersonic. A Jet has to drive through not only the air, but sound waves as well. This incredible damage resistance makes it so a pilot can make a 9 g turn and no damage. An F-4 pilot pulled 12 once, 60 rivets popped out. A .50 was simply outdated on Aircraft by Korea... It's great against fragile props but when you get to a jet with armor like a turtle shell it treats .50s like sticks and stones. The reason sabres did as well as they did, was because the F-86 was better than the MiG-15 and the pilots in them were the best in the World- Early MiG pilots were Russian WWII vets, but later poorly trained Chinese and North Koreans. Good pilots is the same reason why there were ANY aces in Vietnam- And dont even say Air to Air is easy with Missiles.

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

[This message was edited by Dammerung on Wed June 16 2004 at 10:40 PM.]

fordfan25
06-16-2004, 11:40 PM
yea thats what i was tring to say. as things progressed and cannon fire rate incressed and trajectory was improved any advantages the 50. and like guns had was lost but in ww2 6 50s were all that was needed to put down a fighter now tanks and ships well thats diff i would deff rather have a 30mm or two ...or three lol. but its all a mute point the fact is the U.S had John Wanne and thats how we won the war. period, end of debate i shall hear no more J.W won the war and thats that. j/k

BennyMoore
06-16-2004, 11:57 PM
Well, I tend to lean towards the side that claims that fifties are undermodelled, but on the other hand, I've seen planes take quite a beating in gun camera footage. Logic dictates that that much lead will shred things, I know. I feel the same way. However, the gun camera footage seems to prove us wrong.

HellToupee
06-17-2004, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
Im sorry, did you say something? That wasn't about Americans not producing 20mms. This wasn't about Russians having a superior machinegun. This wasn't about the MG151/20. Don't try and change the subject. 6 .50 caliber machineguns Will tear a fighter size object into ribbons. Watch some Guncam footage. Just a few dead six .50 shots is MORE Than enough to send any Jap or Gerry to the ground in a fireball. There was footage of a B-17 gunner shooting at a 190, and he hit it as it was pulling away, and it exploded so violently from one well placed .50 caliber round. Who ever said the .50 was the most effective gun ever produced? All of FB's guns are underpowered now, 'cept maybe Hispanos and ShVAKs. 2 20mm Cannons fire a much smaller volume of fire than 6 .50 calibers. The 20mm will punch large holes in an aircraft, if they hit something important, the plane goes down. The .50s turn whatever they are aimed at into swiss cheese. A 20mm round can penetrate. A .50 can penetrate just as well if not better due to higher muzzle velocity. DU and Incindiary .50 rounds are even better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Muzzle velocity is about the same, and in some cases higher, the 20mm rounds being heavyer and moving at the same speed should penetrate more than a .50 round, unless it is a HE round.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The MG151/20 and other 20mm cannons are for a short burst knockout punch. The .50s are for a 2-3 second burst that shreds the target completely. .50s fire about 4 maybe 5 times faster than any cannon... so you have 25 .50 rounds within the span of a fraction of a second vs about 5 20mm rounds... The .50 may do less damage per round, but there's a lot more of them. Why do you think the P-47 was so great in the ground attack role- Here's a hint. It's not cause It could carry bombs. And it's certainly not because All Americans are "stupid" and think that all .50s are the greatest gun ever. If they were the greatest thing an Aircraft would have, they wouldnt be swapped for 4x 20mms on an F-86. They wouldnt be Swapped for the M61A1 Vulcan that is standard on fighter aircraft today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The .50 didnt fire 4x faster than 20mm cannons, tho 4 of them might, against a 190 the best it could hope for against the 4 20mm is 2x the firerate.
The p47 did well in the ground attack role not due to its guns but because it had high surviveability from ground fire vs something like a spitfire or p51.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

They cripple fighters in one pass. So does the MG151/20. They both should completely destroy their target. It's not like the movies where an aircraft can absorb that kind of punishment. Yes, Wildcats and IL-2s have been reported to take massive punishment. Saburo Sakai himself said he fired 500-600 7.62 rounds into a Wildcat before he had to use his 20mms to take it down. 7.62 doesn't dish out much punishment. Compare it to a human body. Hit it with a 7.62 round, it'll penetrate deep and destroy most everything near the impact area. A .50 makes body parts explode. It'll blow a hole in your chest a foot wide. It'll knock through an Engine block. A 20mm hits a human and there wont be anything left. So yes, round for round the 20mm is better. The volume of fire when dealing with aircraft is key- There's so much .50 fire that you're bound to hit something important. 20mms will blow large chunks off, pieces of wing, gaping holes in the fuselage, but lethality will be reduced without hits to wing roots and engines, which is harder to achieve with a smaller volume of fire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well not if its HE rounds which will spread sharpnel around the place and blow a bigger hole.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 12:21 AM
Its hard to tell in Guncam footage if the target is actually being hit or not with .50 cal. So its really hard to say he is talkign a lot of rounds. I would tend to believe recorded documents of pilots comming home that have only spent 45 rounds total in a P-51 and have a kill then some blurry video footage that shows what may be a hit, but you dunno.

M2 .50 cal's did internal damage. Something you can see in grainy film footage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Well, I tend to lean towards the side that claims that fifties are undermodelled, but on the other hand, I've seen planes take quite a beating in gun camera footage. Logic dictates that that much lead will shred things, I know. I feel the same way. However, the gun camera footage seems to prove us wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BennyMoore
06-17-2004, 12:45 AM
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/6.avi

Note that you must save to disk or you will get the usual tripe about not being found.

The site says that this is "P-40 versus IAR-180," which indicates that the P-40 is doing the firing and the IAR-180 is taking it up the empennage, but that looks like cannon damage to me. I can't tell by the aircraft silhouette which it is. However, there is no doubt about just how many times that plane is hit. And it's still in one piece.

Again, I am not trying to bash the fifties, and I do think that the fifty caliber damage may be slightly undermodelled in the game.

Can anyone shed light on that video? I can't tell which is which, and if those are fifties or not. They sure don't look like it, and if they aren't, then perhaps fifties would have shredded the plane due to much higher rate of fire and therefore more hits.

RedDeth
06-17-2004, 02:08 AM
funny thing about the korean airwar...ive read many mig pilot accounts. some were russians. and they ALL said their cannons were accurate out to about a hundred yards. after that its luck...but they all said that the sabres could hit them regularly out to 1,000 yds with their 50cals....

now if your a mig and start getting strikes on your plane from machine gun fire at 1000 yds are you going to stick around for the sabre to get closer? nope....

but the sabres didnt worry much at longer range

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
06-17-2004, 02:25 AM
Anyone who think that 6x .50 were more dangerous than 4x 20mm+ 2x 13mm is not right..

Anyone who think that a plane could sustain more than 1 or 2 Mk108 30mm hit is not right..

Anyone who think that Old .50 and even new .50 are not efficient enough is INSANE.. hell, I could get 4 to 5 kills in 2.01 in a P51D before gettin out of ammo. Now I can reach 6 or 7 before finishing them. (tested online). If you think those .50 are undermodelled, well, go back to training mate, you might suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Hoarmurath
06-17-2004, 02:29 AM
Don't worry, they are only debating to know which of them will replace RBJ...

You think your .50 are undermodelled? Put them on a slider!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Spectre-63
06-17-2004, 02:30 AM
My God in Heaven....are you people never happy??? The patch isn't even official yet and the whining has already begun...the .50's are too uber, they're too light, the 20mm's all screwed up.....sheesh....

I dunno how you guys can sit and fly for any length of time with your panties bunched up that tight...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

BennyMoore
06-17-2004, 02:33 AM
Well, some of us want realism. I do. We just all hold different beliefs about what was reality in World War Two.

Anyway, my only beef with the fifty caliber machine guns in the game is that there is way too much dispersion, and I hear that the patch fixes that. So, I guess I won't have any beef with them after the patch is released.

My big beef is with the P-38.

NegativeGee
06-17-2004, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
funny thing about the korean airwar...ive read many mig pilot accounts. some were russians. and they ALL said their cannons were accurate out to about a hundred yards. after that its luck...but they all said that the sabres could hit them regularly out to 1,000 yds with their 50cals....

now if your a mig and start getting strikes on your plane from machine gun fire at 1000 yds are you going to stick around for the sabre to get closer? nope....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which cannons?

If you are refering to the ballistic mismatch the 37mm N-97 and 23mm NS-23 cannons repsresented then that is a fair point. I don't think the weapons were inherently inaccurate at all, more that the MiG-15/MiG-15bis were not the best gun platform and lacked such a sophisticated gunsight as F-86 had (which was still a useful piece of gear in the overall scheme of things, whatever you may read from the "chuck it out" brigade).

Anyway, Korea was the conflict that served to show the M2 0.50 was finally outclassed as a premium fighter gun. It just seems that most other nations arrived at this conclusion some time sooner.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Red_Storm
06-17-2004, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
Im sorry, did you say something? That wasn't about Americans not producing 20mms. This wasn't about Russians having a superior machinegun. This wasn't about the MG151/20. Don't try and change the subject. 6 .50 caliber machineguns Will tear a fighter size object into ribbons. Watch some Guncam footage. Just a few dead six .50 shots is MORE Than enough to send any Jap or Gerry to the ground in a fireball. There was footage of a B-17 gunner shooting at a 190, and he hit it as it was pulling away, and it exploded so violently from one well placed .50 caliber round. Who ever said the .50 was the most effective gun ever produced? All of FB's guns are underpowered now, 'cept maybe Hispanos and ShVAKs. 2 20mm Cannons fire a much smaller volume of fire than 6 .50 calibers. The 20mm will punch large holes in an aircraft, if they hit something important, the plane goes down. The .50s turn whatever they are aimed at into swiss cheese. A 20mm round can penetrate. A .50 can penetrate just as well if not better due to higher muzzle velocity. DU and Incindiary .50 rounds are even better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Muzzle velocity is about the same, and in some cases higher, the 20mm rounds being heavyer and moving at the same speed should penetrate more than a .50 round, unless it is a HE round.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The MG151/20 and other 20mm cannons are for a short burst knockout punch. The .50s are for a 2-3 second burst that shreds the target completely. .50s fire about 4 maybe 5 times faster than any cannon... so you have 25 .50 rounds within the span of a fraction of a second vs about 5 20mm rounds... The .50 may do less damage per round, but there's a lot more of them. Why do you think the P-47 was so great in the ground attack role- Here's a hint. It's not cause It could carry bombs. And it's certainly not because All Americans are "stupid" and think that all .50s are the greatest gun ever. If they were the greatest thing an Aircraft would have, they wouldnt be swapped for 4x 20mms on an F-86. They wouldnt be Swapped for the M61A1 Vulcan that is standard on fighter aircraft today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The .50 didnt fire 4x faster than 20mm cannons, tho 4 of them might, against a 190 the best it could hope for against the 4 20mm is 2x the firerate.
The p47 did well in the ground attack role not due to its guns but because it had high surviveability from ground fire vs something like a spitfire or p51.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

They cripple fighters in one pass. So does the MG151/20. They both should completely destroy their target. It's not like the movies where an aircraft can absorb that kind of punishment. Yes, Wildcats and IL-2s have been reported to take massive punishment. Saburo Sakai himself said he fired 500-600 7.62 rounds into a Wildcat before he had to use his 20mms to take it down. 7.62 doesn't dish out much punishment. Compare it to a human body. Hit it with a 7.62 round, it'll penetrate deep and destroy most everything near the impact area. A .50 makes body parts explode. It'll blow a hole in your chest a foot wide. It'll knock through an Engine block. A 20mm hits a human and there wont be anything left. So yes, round for round the 20mm is better. The volume of fire when dealing with aircraft is key- There's so much .50 fire that you're bound to hit something important. 20mms will blow large chunks off, pieces of wing, gaping holes in the fuselage, but lethality will be reduced without hits to wing roots and engines, which is harder to achieve with a smaller volume of fire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well not if its HE rounds which will spread sharpnel around the place and blow a bigger hole.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the MG151/20E's muzzle velocity was the same, or higher, the rounds were heavier, were packed with explosives and had the same rate of fire. The MG151/20E fired at 740rpm, the M2 .50 at 750rpm.

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-17-2004, 03:58 AM
im getting more than sick of this whole 50cal whine do you guys looked at any guncam footage et al? or even take the time to learn how to use them?

i have alot of guncam footage about 50cals and german 20mm/30mm and im NOT impressed by the hitting power of the 50cal IRL
guys saying here a good burst is enough to tear a FW190 apart LOL well it doesnt. SHOW ME SOME proof ,links with unbiased non propaganda guncam footage and dont give one lucky hit guncam but alot with all the same result

i have this footage of a P51D vs a FW190D9 and it took the P51 3 good passes and 3 3 seconds burst to make the D9 pilot bail out and his plane wasnt ripped apart nor a fire ball like some say here what will happen after one pass

with the patch 2.01 the 50cal is more than enough capable to shoot down a fighter with one burst MAN sometimes i wonder how you guys shoot dammit i can take out more fighters with a P51D than with a 109
Axis vs Allies that is


people realy want the 50cal to do the same damage as a Mg151 and Mk108 with a one second burst sorry that is just bull


if someone has the webspace and is willing to host i will send Guncam footage with the not so super 50cals and alot of tracks how frigging EFFECTIVE the 50cal is VS 109s and 190s

My Mk108 doesnt kill a P51 with one shot ONLINE ,so should i start the Big whine about it ?


if one should believe all this crapola about the 50cals
it must be some Nuke warhead red super laser

bah just enjoy the game children relax abit go out more have some sex and be willing to show facts and data to back it up
im willing but i need a host http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/SUNSIGD9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Red_Storm
06-17-2004, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
im getting more than sick of this whole 50cal whine do you guys looked at any guncam footage et al? or even take the time to learn how to use them?

i have alot of guncam footage about 50cals and german 20mm/30mm and im NOT impressed by the hitting power of the 50cal IRL
guys saying here a good burst is enough to tear a FW190 apart LOL well it doesnt. SHOW ME SOME proof ,links with unbiased non propaganda guncam footage and dont give one lucky hit guncam but alot with all the same result

i have this footage of a P51D vs a FW190D9 and it took the P51 3 good passes and 3 3 seconds burst to make the D9 pilot bail out and his plane wasnt ripped apart nor a fire ball like some say here what will happen after one pass

with the patch 2.01 the 50cal is more than enough capable to shoot down a fighter with one burst MAN sometimes i wonder how you guys shoot dammit i can take out more fighters with a P51D than with a 109
Axis vs Allies that is


people realy want the 50cal to do the same damage as a Mg151 and Mk108 with a one second burst sorry that is just bull


if someone has the webspace and is willing to host i will send Guncam footage with the not so super 50cals and alot of tracks how frigging EFFECTIVE the 50cal is VS 109s and 190s

My Mk108 doesnt kill a P51 with one shot ONLINE ,so should i start the Big whine about it ?


if one should believe all this crapola about the 50cals
it must be some Nuke warhead red super laser

bah just enjoy the game children relax abit go out more have some sex and be willing to show facts and data to back it up
im willing but i need a host http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/SUNSIGD9.jpg
_''All your Mustangs are belong to us''_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly what I think. I often wonder how those P51 pilots must be flying in order to whine so much. After a lot of tests with my squad, it appeared the P-51 climbed marginally better than the Dora on the deck, it outturns the Bf-109G-14 and with those M2 .50's it has more, or just as much crippling power as the FW-190 and still there are whines. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Oleg admitted on several occassions he'd be using the best findable US data to model US planes and weapons, as he was getting sick of all the whining. I used to have fun flying the '47 and '51 and I say bring them back to realistic levels.

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

alarmer
06-17-2004, 04:24 AM
As an Axis flyer I think that even with dispersion 0.5 are really deadly against German planes.

If you cant get a kill with them now there is something seriously wrong in your il2 skills. I find that shooting and getting a kill is easyest with 0.5cal weapons at the moment.

Also you shouldnt make conversation about online playing at all, everybody knows that high pings and many other things affect gunnery in online. So if you take P51 in offline and shoot 109 with it the result is close to what you people are expecting. I can drop 109 with single burst which lasts less than 3 seconds everytime. No exceptions.

Guncam footages usually give you the most dramatic situations so wouldnt believe them too much either. Warstories are different matter but I think Olegs way of modelling stuff according to tech sheets and calculations is the right way to approach the matter.

You must also understand that there is certain "game balance" made in il2 due to its wide success. Who honestly thinks that example 108 cannon shouldnt destroy a fighter sized plane with one or max two shots?

In end Iam pleased to see the dispersion of 0.5cals fixed but then again some writers in here clearly live in fantasy world thinking that 0.5cals smashed crashed and blasted planes into oblivion with less than 1 second bursts.

Sunburst:

I can host your guncam footages, send me a email to alarmer1981@hotmail.com and we can discuss about the details.

JtD
06-17-2004, 04:33 AM
Look at this:

http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/p51.mpeg

Some .50's vs. a FW 190D.

Nanuk66
06-17-2004, 04:35 AM
Pssst...We better go back inside b4 is gets too dark.

Soon the .50 cal whiners will be out.

They mostly come out at night...mostly....

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
06-17-2004, 04:49 AM
by night...? when its night on this side of the Atlantic I bet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

VVS-Manuc
06-17-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin510:
by night...? when its night on this side of the Atlantic I bet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

0.50 cal dispersion back to 2.01 level !

Huxley_S
06-17-2004, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Look at this:

http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/p51.mpeg

Some .50's vs. a FW 190D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of hits, 190D smokes a bit, pilot bails...

Looks exactly like FB to me!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

NegativeGee
06-17-2004, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Pssst...We better go back inside b4 is gets too dark.

Soon the .50 cal whiners will be out.

They mostly come out at night...mostly....

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lmao!

"Their coming outta the godda*n walls!"

and

"Looks like some sort of secreted arguement....

Yeah, but secreted from what?"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Thu June 17 2004 at 05:18 AM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-17-2004, 05:50 AM
thnx Jtd for the footage i think thats the one i was talking about im not sure have to check it when im home

Now guys go take a look at it and come back and say the 50s are undermodeld in DAMAGE and Dispersion (V2.01)

if we compare this to the 50s in V2.02 they are overmodeld and way stronger
look how many tracers you see in the guncam footage

IMHO it sure didt look impressive and they SURE as hell dont rip planes apart with a good burst

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/SUNSIGD9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Tully__
06-17-2004, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
ROF varried GREATLY between 1 .50 cal to another. Even off the same production line. Its amazign that this is simulated in-game because guns on a P-38 or P-47 run out at differant times. Cool effect. 750 was "average" were 850 was best, and 650 was worst. I did a LOT of research when fighting my .50 cal battle. Be sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I have 850 rpm with the unsynchronized .50 cal M2 with a muzzle volocity of 880mps.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know a chap who's done some armourer work on .50's. He tells me that with a bit of trigger work you can easily vary ROF on the infantry version from as low as 600rpm to over 1000rpm (thought the trigger is a bit touchy and barrel life a bit short at the latter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)
Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Tully__
06-17-2004, 06:51 AM
BTW, I haven't weighed in on .50 discussions because (provided I can actually hit something) I don't have trouble shooting down fighters with them.

One of the reasons the US stuck with .50's on most of their a/c during WW2 is that they didn't spend much time doing bomber intercept. Against fighters they are pretty good (not great) provided I'm hitting the target. At least I find it so.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)
Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Huxley_S
06-17-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, I haven't weighed in on .50 discussions because (provided I can actually hit something) I don't have trouble shooting down fighters with them.

One of the reasons the US stuck with .50's on most of their a/c during WW2 is that they didn't spend much time doing bomber intercept. Against fighters they are pretty good (not great) provided I'm hitting the target. At least I find it so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but are you using the leaked patch? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

JtD
06-17-2004, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lots of hits, 190D smokes a bit, pilot bails...

Looks exactly like FB to me!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I thought, too.

Tully__
06-17-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, I haven't weighed in on .50 discussions because (provided I can actually hit something) I don't have trouble shooting down fighters with them.

One of the reasons the US stuck with .50's on most of their a/c during WW2 is that they didn't spend much time doing bomber intercept. Against fighters they are pretty good (not great) provided I'm hitting the target. At least I find it so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but are you using the leaked patch? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. I'm waiting for the real thing, just like the last two leaked ones. I can't see the point in getting excited about the leaked versions when they are so often very dis-similar to the official releases in some aspects. I suspect the culprit who leaks them chooses the most controversial version to leak just to watch the hooplah on the forums http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)
Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

ImpStarDuece
06-17-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One of the reasons the US stuck with .50's on most of their a/c during WW2 is that they didn't spend much time doing bomber intercept. Against fighters they are pretty good (not great) provided I'm hitting the target. At least I find it so.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of the OTHER reasons that the US stayed with the .50cal were impetus, economics and production.

Impetus in that the .50 was a major part of the US supply and ordanance chain. Think how difficult it would of been to swap to a different weapon of a different calibre while your armament factories are in full production.

Economics in that the .50 was an established and reliable design with adequate performance. To switch production to another weapon would of required a serious investment in cash, manpower and retooling. Something that a wartime economy, even one the size of the US, would have difficulty doing effectively with a weapon that was integral in all four service arms.

Production in that most US attempts to actually make larger calibre weapons (particularly an adoption of the hispano 20mm) because of design and production difficulties. Look at this article The 20mm in US service (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm) and the difficulties experianced by the US in getting larger calibre guns nto service is explained (even if the 20mm Oldsmobile cannon in the P-38 was a success)

Furthermore, US naval sources state that tests done revealed that the 20mm Hispano was 2.5 to 3 times more effective than a single .50 cal. So a Hurri IIc with x4 20mm Hispano has the equavilent firpower of 10-12 .50s. This is combined with a much higher HE content and better initial kenetic energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2 20mm Cannons fire a much smaller volume of fire than 6 .50 calibers. The 20mm will punch large holes in an aircraft, if they hit something important, the plane goes down. The .50s turn whatever they are aimed at into swiss cheese. A 20mm round can penetrate. A .50 can penetrate just as well if not better due to higher muzzle velocity. DU and Incindiary .50 rounds are even better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> .50s fire about 4 maybe 5 times faster than any cannon... so you have 25 .50 rounds within the span of a fraction of a second vs about 5 20mm rounds... The .50 may do less damage per round, but there's a lot more of them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dammerung, sorry but this is just so wrong. I cant help myself. A 20mm Hispano has the same ROF as a .50 cal at about 850 rpm or 13 rps. Therefore it will have the same volume of fire not 1/4 or 1/5 of a fifty. US planes may of carried more ammo but when firing a 20mm puts out a much greater weight of metal and HE. Both a .50 and a 20mm will penetrate well at anything under 500m. Both have rounds that are fused to explode when they penetrate the skin of the target thereby causing maximum fragmentation and damage. A 20mm has ten times the HE contnet of a .50 round at the same rate of fire and muzzle velocity. Swiss cheese and big explosions. I'd say the 20mm wins hands down.

BTW, DU rounds were NOT used in ww2. They hadn't even been theorised about at the time let alone put into production

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

Danschnell
06-17-2004, 08:55 AM
I agree completely.
.50 whiners always say 'our .50 guns should kill anything, all the time, no matter what the circumstances.' Thats just silly.
Anecdotes should not replace good hard facts. Rates of fire, round wights, explosive weights, and calibre should all be taken into account when damage modelling the game.
People tend to give anecdotes when something interesting happens. They don't tend to write 'hey, I fired at the plane and it died exactly as I'd expect it to,' no, they say things like 'I fired at the plane with my .50 and one single round killed it!'
We should not take anecdotes and model them in the game. We should use the real life scientific meausements. Of course nearly all cannons were more destructive.
If Ubi give in to the .50 whiners, we'll have to create a new breed of 'armour' whiners. There are just as many anecdotes of Fw190 pilots saying things like 'my plane was so armoured. I took a 10 second burst and still got home.' So lets be reasonable.

Cippacometa
06-17-2004, 09:35 AM
I have the impression that all guns are undermodelled in IL-2FB.
I've read several books reporting accounts of WWII pilots.

Regarding .50 MGs, for example, a very short burst was able to cripple an aircraft such as a FW.190, which in our game is almost insensitive to this weapon.

Besides, 20 mm cannons, except maybe those modeled on Japanese and English airplanes, are also weak. For example, several german pilots reported to have killed with their Bf.109G a couple of Sturmoviks in a mission, plus eventually another aircraft: in FB, unless you have unlimited ammos on, it is impossible to down more than a Sturmovik with a Bf.109G and its 20 mm cannon (the two MG131 are useless against the flying tank!).

I also experienced to put 2 or 3 37 mm hits with a P-39 right into the fuselage of another single-engined aircraft from death 6, just to see few pieces of metal flying off and, maybe, some tiny smoke. That sound quite bizarre, doesn't it?

Besides, also 30 mm guns should be able to rip off a wing with a single HE hit, which is often not the case.

I repeat: ALL guns, except MAYBE Jap and Brits cannons, look largely undermodelled.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-17-2004, 09:42 AM
Yawn...another .50 cals are better than anything but still undermodelled boo-hoo bore-fest. I haven't seen quite enough "unbiased", anecdotal evidence - more please!

If it takes 1 sec of .50s at convergence to destroy a target then there is no way that it should take 4-6 Mk108 hits on a P47 to bring it down offline or online.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Dammerung
06-17-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lots of hits, 190D smokes a bit, pilot bails...

Looks exactly like FB to me!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I thought, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a few snapshots... At the end a good burst which actually does the damage... He goes down. Not the way it is in FB, for sure. I have a hr long propaganda film of a B-17 crew, they shoot down several fighters... if someone could find it, i'd be greatful... You see a 110 and a 109/190(can't tell at distance) exploding into massive fireballs and others going down without wings.
About ROFs and Such: It's about an entire battery of .50s, like the 6 or 8 you find on fighter aircraft. 4x 20mms on the Hurricane would have more destructive power than a .50. A Single Mk108 shell SHOULD be more than enough to destroy any fighter sized Aircraft... The Mk108, the MG151/20, and the .50 are all underpowered right now, I'm not singling anything out. Also, I realize DU rounds haven't been around till recently... But now are used AFAIK not only in the GAU-8 but also the .50 when called for... Remember though, I'm talking about A battery of 6 .50s like used on WWII A/C and Korea A/C... vs 1-2 20mms... It's also an issue of weight...

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

LilHorse
06-17-2004, 10:05 AM
I just want to interject here that if what you are relying on as proof of the .50s effectivness is first hand pilot accounts and guncam footage...well...let's just say it's not terribly reliable. Most guncam footage we see today is comprised of the "highlight reels" from missions. I'd guarantee that if you watched hours of guncam footage you'd see lots of firing that are misses and lots that show hits but no significant damage.

And pilot accounts are the same. All you're gonna see in print will be: "After a 2 sec. burst with my fifties the 109 exploded in a fireball." 'cause that's what makes for exciting reading. You aren't gonna see much: "I hit him with a burst of fifty, but didn't see any noticible effect. Then he split S'd and I lost sight of him." Not terribly exciting is it?

The M2 was (and still is) a very good weapon. And batteries of them converging on a point could be devastating. But expecting to see planes "blow up" or cut them to pieces consistantly is unrealistic. Sure it'll happen sometimes. When it does, add it to your "highlight reel". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[This message was edited by LilHorse on Thu June 17 2004 at 09:17 AM.]

[This message was edited by LilHorse on Thu June 17 2004 at 09:19 AM.]

ThrallSA
06-17-2004, 10:09 AM
Interesting thread. I can't help but compare it to the old 9mm vs. 45ACP (minor vs major) debate so common in handgun self-defence circles.

Simple fact is, a fast noise is just that - fast, but just noise. You need enough accuracy to hit the target and enough penetration to punch through and hit something vital. Assuming you have those two in place, it really won't make any difference what you use.

A .22 will kill you just as dead as a .45ACP, but you're going to have to be more skillful (and a lot luckier) to do it with the smaller caliber.

A larger (larger diameter, that is) caliber has the advantage of projectile weight (which aids penetration, assuming equal projectile-design) and diameter (which aids in clipping something vital that a slimmer projectile might have *just* missed). However, the smaller caliber has the advantage in that it usually (but not always) has a higher rate-of-fire and less recoil.

I think it's really up to the skill of the person doing the shooting, same as it always has been. Know your target, do whatever's necessary to make the shots hit the spot and use whatever projectile will penetrate to the vitals of your expected target.

Oh - and never expect the target to just fold up and die, even after doing everything right. Each target is different and will react differently, just as humans do - whether it's on the ground or in the air, there ain't no guarantees in a gunfight.

http://home.wol.co.za/~20137865/images/127001.jpg

Danschnell
06-17-2004, 10:26 AM
That was very well said.
No gun is magical.
I personally can say that online I've 3 times ripped the wing off an IL2 with just 1 round from my 20mm.
I can say that I have downed many planes on many occassions with a glancing hit, a one second burst with .50 from the thunderbolt.
Yet, some people say that they shoot and shoot and shoot and the enemy doesn't go down.
I remember someone posting an anecdote though a while back about a B-29 with half its cockpit missing. A Black widow with 4 20mm and 4 .50 guns was ordered to down it. The Black Widow used ALL its ammo, and still it remained uncertain whether or not the B-29 would crash... it did in the end.
I also remember pictures been posted of B-17s that made it home with extensive Mk108 hits.
He-111s could make it home with 1000 hits from brownings.

To cut a long story short, the damage modelling and gun power in this game is done brilliantly. All these 'extensive changes' people talk about are rubbish. Making 'extensive changes' would only end up biasing the game too far in one particular direction.

Lets just lobby for changes which we ALL agree on.
These changes are...

B-17 engines cath fire too easily.

Ju87 engines catch fire too easily.

Fw190 gunsights break too easily.

.50 guns have incorrect dispersion.

Personlly I belive the power of guns is correctly modelled in 2.01. This version is a true masterpiece. There are things wrong with it, but not many.
What annoys me personally about the damage modells is bombers engines catching fire more easily than fighters, and some of the German bombers, namely the Ju88 don't seem structurally sound enough.
I also don't like the way that AI aircraft seem programmed to have a dead pilot if a single round hits anywhere near a cockpit section. I see loads and loads of easy pilot kills all the time, but no other crew member ever seems to die in AI bombers.

kalo456
06-17-2004, 10:42 AM
Hey guys, I'm baaaack http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well I started this thread so it's only right I come back and say a little more after I have stirred up a 6 page debate. At least no one flamed me, I think because I agree that alot of weapons are undermodelled.

In that guncam footage that JTD so kindly posted, that 190 never took a concentrated burst until the very end when he levelled out. I can see why it was still in the air.

I am so tired of blasting a fighter (P-51's) with 2 or 3 MK108 shells and seeing it run for home. I am tired of plastering a fighter with MG151/20 shells and seeing it still have any fuselage left. Its alot of the guns in the game. As I said about the only thing that hits like I believe it should is the 20mm Hispanos on the Spit. Those things are lethal every time if you land hits. Thats how 20mm should be. .50 calibre should be lethal for those that can shoot and track a shot and keep it on target for a second or two. I can, I have been playing flightsims since Microsoft flight simulator 1. I used to dogfight in monochrome for god sakes. I have millions of hours in combat sims. I am a good shot and I just feel the .50 cals don;t produce the effects a good marksman should be able to achieve with them. Maybe 2.02 will fix that. I haven't been able to fly it online yet. I have just tried 2.02 offline and done some tests. Noticeable was the new dispersion model. I could see all my hits pinpointing in the area I had my pipper on. It looked really cool, I liked the graphic effect. My feeling was that the rounds themselves were still undermodelled at conversion range though. Yes I was able to shoot down a.i. FW190's no problems, but when I see all of my rounds converge into the engine or wingroot area and nothing catastrophic occurs, I wonder.

Anyway, I started this thread and maybe I can end all the bickering. Either you agree or you don;t agree, but this is opinion. Some opinions can be more informed than others but we all have a right. The people that call others whiners should stop. I am for all the guns to do the proper damage not just .50's.

Dammerung, Fordfan (I think?) and others, I appreciate the support http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I believe we are right.
see ya' online!

9./JG54_Kalo

Hoarmurath
06-17-2004, 11:14 AM
You think, you believe, and you have a lot of experience on other flight simulators.

Ok, you're an expert...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

jtasker
06-17-2004, 11:36 AM
So the .50 range should be greater then 30mm one. O gave a fast search and found references that point to a slightly greater range for the Mk 108.

And the 108 is not designed to damage by pure gaseous expansion.... that was an EXTRA effect I SAW a Mk108 bullet in front of me in a museum.. and beleive me.. that thing is big enough to to bring a house wall down WITHOUT the warhead inside it. No alluminium plane would even bother to stop the bullet in its way!!![b]

Remember oldman, HOLES don't kill planes, holes in important areas do. YOu punch a .50 inch hole or a 30mm hole its unlikely to make a difference.. THat 30mm detonates and sends a mass of expansing gas outward at 30,000 fps overpressuring bulkheads ad wing spars, its a lot different.



[b]But IF i am wrong and .50 is much faster than 30mm(notice in my post I speak about INSTANT power.. not including rate of fire) the .50 should also have a much greater range in FB.

Anyway I am still looking for precise muzlee speed of both weapons.

Oldman, its obvious from your post that you don't have any background in what you speak of, and for all I know you may be 11 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You can't swing a dead cat without hitting those specs on the net.

The .50 cal used in aircraft had a slightly shorter barrel than the standard M2, and a slightly lower muzzle veocity of about 866 MPS. (2840 fps) please refer to the link below for detailed specs..use LIGHTWEIGHT or AIRCRAFT for the info.

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG.htm

The Mk108 had a muzzle velocity of only 540 MPS, or 1750 fps. The shell (depending on which type, was DRAMATICALLY less aerodynamic than the .50 caliber, and would lose speed and energy quicker..as well as have a MUCH higher trajectory. See below for details..

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mk108.html


The Mk108 was also designed from its incecption to destroy large aircraft by GASEOUS expansion.. its casing was very thin, which minimizes fragmentation effect in order to cram more explosive filler inside. Its fusing is designed to allow it to penetrtate about 12" prior to detonation..to insure its inside an airspacec when it goes off.

Like it or not, those are facts. The fact that you looked at one on display is nice, but it obviously does not mean you can speak with any knowledge about it.

If a Mk 108 hits the H Stab of a fighter, or the trailing edge of the wing or control surface, ,you may lose that portion that is "expanded" but you may not lose the entire wing because the individual PART will fail without the gas pressure spreading.. if you get a detonation INSIDE a wing, or the fuselage, the damage will be catastrophic.

One answer to this would be to increase the fidelity of the damage mmodel to more accurately model the drag due to large skin loss on a surface..so a plane hit with a 30mm might not go down immidiately, but its performance would be minimal..

Overall I'd recommend you spend more time researching and less time typing.. Its always better to be remotely accurate before you open your pie hole http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
06-17-2004, 12:09 PM
man, what happend last night after i went to sleep? every one was haveing a nice debate seems like after i went to sleep all the a$$ holes came out to run there mouths and make smart @$$ comments.i swear i dont get this whole computer nerd "whiners" thing thats been going on here and there. seems some one cant disagree with something with out some crack head call'n them a "whiner". thats so lame.o look my tv is on fire. "your such a tv whiner".every one in here was haveing a nice discussion about something then all a sudden some jerks come in and start makeing smart a$$ remarks. if your tired of the 50.cal debate here is a good idea for you dont.... .open....the.....thread. du, just ignore it. it takes up an inch or less of your screen start a thread you wanna talk about.im not pointing at any one you know who you are. just becouse your siting safe and sound in your house were no one can kick you in the mouth doesnt mean you have to be rude come on use some frign common sense.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 12:53 PM
First some thoughts -

1. Don't blame the 50cal damage effects if in your opinion the 20mm and 30mm guns are not performing up to historical snuff. Get some good data to Dr Oleg and make the case for a correction. That is what we did with respect to 50cal dispersion. Data does not = whining.

2. I am not interested in arguing whether or not the 50cal was the perfect air-to-air weapon. It was not. But it was good enough in batteries of six or eight guns to do the job at hand.

Now that I have that off my chest, here is some of that good data on 50cal performance compared to MG151/20 in terms of accuracy.

Some info on the Browning 50cal M2 (36-inch barrel):
Initial velocity firing Bullet AP M2 - 2835 fps (864 m/s)
This data USA circa 1948

@ 200 yards -
Striking velocity: 2600 fps (792 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 7 inches (18 cm)

@ 300 yards -
Striking velocity: 2475 fps (792 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 17 inches (43 cm)

@ 400 yards -
Striking velocity: 2350 fps (716 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 32 inches (81 cm)

@ 600 yards -
Striking velocity: 2125 fps (648 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 72 inches (183 cm)


Compare these 50cal bullet drop values with those for the MG151/20 taken from Hyperion's posted German ballistic performance chart (go to ORR):

50cal @ 200 yards-------- 18 cm
MG151/20 @ 200 meters---- 50 cm

50cal @ 300 yards-------- 43 cm
MG151/20 @ 300 meters---- 110 cm

50cal @ 400 yards-------- 81 cm
MG151/20 @ 400 meters---- 204 cm

50cal @ 600 yards-------- 183 cm
MG151/20 @ 600 meters---- no data

From this data it is clear that the 50cal fires a very much flatter and hence more accurate trajectory than the lower velocity MG151/20 (OTOH, I do agree with Stiglr that the difference was strictly academic at ranges under 200 yards). Since bullet drop is also analogous to time of flight, it is interesting to note that the 50cal ToF out to 300 and 600 yards was the same as that of the MG151/20 to 200 and 400 meters respectively. The M2 50cal was not light; nor did it have the very highest possible rate of fire. But it did fire a comparatively heavy AP bullet at very high muzzle velocity, which made it an extremely accurate and hard hitting air-to-air heavy machine gun. Note for example that the striking velocity of the 50cal M2 AP round @ 400 yards was equal to the initial velocities of some low velocity 20mm guns.

Another, often overlooked virtue of its use, is that a uniform battery of 50cals (with the exception of the P38) provided American fighters with uniform weapon ballistics, which in turn made effective air-to-air harmonization and gunnery easier.

BLUTARSKI

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu June 17 2004 at 03:50 PM.]

NorrisMcWhirter
06-17-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
man, what happend last night after i went to sleep? every one was haveing a nice debate seems like after i went to sleep all the a$$ holes came out to run there mouths and make smart @$$ comments.i swear i dont get this whole computer nerd "whiners" thing thats been going on here and there. seems some one cant disagree with something with out some crack head call'n them a "whiner". thats so lame.o look my tv is on fire. "your such a tv whiner".every one in here was haveing a nice discussion about something then all a sudden some jerks come in and start makeing smart a$$ remarks. if your tired of the 50.cal debate here is a good idea for you dont.... .open....the.....thread. du, just ignore it. it takes up an inch or less of your screen start a thread you wanna talk about.im not pointing at any one you know who you are. just becouse your siting safe and sound in your house were no one can kick you in the mouth doesnt mean you have to be rude come on use some frign common sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wise words.

Now, can I have that in English?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

BS87
06-17-2004, 02:49 PM
.......

*head explodes*

Sharpe26
06-17-2004, 02:57 PM
wow, six pages of stuff on the 50 cals make interesting reading.

now I have to get some things of my chest.

1: about those clips;

ever took a look at where the respective pilots where shooting AT?

I can answer in two words: something vital

2: for those of you who worry about spread. Why bother? unlike most other sims I've played Forgotten Battles reinforces one thing and that is GET CLOSE. the white of their eyes close that is how close you want to try to get.

3: don't think all guns on a plane like the P47 were loaded with API shot. ammo was mixed. Maybe the origin of "mixed results" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

4: I get the feeling that some of you might need to learn how to shoot (again)

that's my input on it all. take it or leave if you want.

btw, if BOB is as extensive as Oleg's dev updates claim it to be, hitting something vital is going to be a chore to learn.

fordfan25
06-17-2004, 03:17 PM
gee good one.ya really got me there ha ha ha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif "sarcasm" you think that was bad you should read my post when im sober lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BfHeFwMe
06-17-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


Some of the OTHER reasons that the US stayed with the .50cal were impetus, economics and production.

Impetus in that the .50 was a major part of the US supply and ordanance chain. Think how difficult it would of been to swap to a different weapon of a different calibre while your armament factories are in full production.

Economics in that the .50 was an established and reliable design with adequate performance. To switch production to another weapon would of required a serious investment in cash, manpower and retooling. Something that a wartime economy, even one the size of the US, would have difficulty doing effectively with a weapon that was integral in all four service arms.

Production in that most US attempts to actually make larger calibre weapons (particularly an adoption of the hispano 20mm) because of design and production difficulties. Look at this article

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just one little problem with that theory, US plants never came near full production capacity, rationing was never needed, it was a political decision to keep Joe public involved with the war. They had all sorts of capacity to throw away on things such as atom bombs, a real luxury since no one knew it would ever work in practice.

BS87
06-17-2004, 03:50 PM
Just to show how random the game can be.
http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v63/BS87cr/grab0000.jpg

In that shot, ALL of those arrows are from the .50s from my P38. The plane flew on for about 5 minutes, until i popped it with a 20mm.

On the other hand, if needed i can provide pictures where 4-7 hit completly carve up the plane, sending it to the ground.

The game is random, sometimes it takes 4 .50s, sometimes it takes tons. Sometimes it takes 1 mk108, sometimes it takes 8.

OldMan____
06-17-2004, 04:49 PM
To jTasker


No my m,ost dear friend. I am not 11 year old, I am 24 an work in a game development house developing a combat simulator too. I am responsable for the implementation of a damage model for our game. I´ve been working with mechanichal engineer guys and know very well how the physics of a solid penetrating another solid works. I know the effects of a solid object bigger than the limit of deformation of a target object does when penetratin it. I know that the effdects are entirely different depending on the molecular characteristics of the metal (and no I really do not have eact data about steel characteristics at 40´s). I have even perfomed simulations in a shock wave propagation program running in a computer cluster in local university for the purposes of knowing the damage propagation of a hit in a system far from the direct hit spot.. Of course it was not about ww2 weapons.. but about the weapons that the game where I work are intended to (150mm guns and bigger)

You should also READ the entire post before answering, since I admited myself my informations about Mk108 were wrong. I has Mk 103 in my mind. So you should spend some time learning to be polite and not flaming things..

By your answer I think you should probably not be 11.. but a 17 years old boy in that part of life when your education works like a 3 year old boy.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

[This message was edited by OldMan____ on Thu June 17 2004 at 04:07 PM.]

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Just one little problem with that theory, US plants never came near full production capacity, rationing was never needed, it was a political decision to keep Joe public involved with the war. They had all sorts of capacity to throw away on things such as atom bombs, a real luxury since no one knew it would ever work in practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Your belief on this point is quite profoundly in error.

BLUTARSKI

HellToupee
06-17-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
Actually, the MG151/20E's muzzle velocity was the same, or higher, the rounds were heavier, were packed with explosives and had _the same rate of fire_. The MG151/20E fired at 740rpm, the M2 .50 at 750rpm.

---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was comparing 8 .50s with 4 20mms

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

lonegunman16
06-17-2004, 07:48 PM
If someone could please show me how to add files to a post, I have some tracks of me vs some B-17s. In both tracks,I take one bullet to the engines from the nose gunner of the B-17. In both tracks, my engine immedately catches on fire.

fordfan25
06-17-2004, 09:01 PM
that happend to me a number of time aginst he111s mostly some times the engine wouldnt catch fire just stop. im starting to think mabey the bomers guns are stronger than there fighter conterparts lol

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 09:10 PM
I think its more of were the bulletes are commin from then power. If a bomber is shooting you, your more then likley pointing at it. The incomming bullete is more likley to hit your engine then if your going away from the enemy like in a dogfight. If your being shot at from behind, there is an aweful lot of aircraft the bullete needs to go through before it reaches the engine.

Also since your flying too the bullete and not away, it may add some kinetic energy as apposed to flying away from the bulletes path. Im not sure if Oleg modeles this.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BfHeFwMe
06-17-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Your belief on this point is quite profoundly in error.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, me and the Brewster aircraft works are both wrong. An established military aircraft plant that managed to go belly up right in the middle of a war. Must have worked the employees to death trying to keep capacity up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

BennyMoore
06-17-2004, 10:23 PM
No, it's just that Brewster sucked in real life even worse than it does in the game.

StellarRat
06-17-2004, 10:26 PM
I can't believe all the people that are whining about one bullet kills. Lets face it, an engine is a complicated piece of machinery there are many places where one bullet can cripple or stop it, even a big airplane engine. One hit in the crankcase on the main shaft and you are done (that's only one example.) None of the engines in this game is capable of resisting .50 bullets or anything bigger. They are meant to run, not repel bullets. The only reason they offer any resistance at all is because the block has to be fairly strong to support combustion, it is not designed to be bullet proof.

fordfan25
06-17-2004, 10:38 PM
apparently youv never driven a ford through greenvill florida lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cragger
06-17-2004, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It has insane penetration, you hit a person with a .50 caliber round in the chest and there will be nothing but pieces.in hell...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull****, A .50 Ball, API, or Tracer round is going to go in one side of a flesh target and out the other. It will leave approximate .5 entry wound and probably a exit wound you can fit a softball in. It WILL NOT do what you describe. A 17th century Ball musket round was far more destructive to human tissue with much less penetration. Overpenetration leads to less damage on a tissue target because the round does not impart all its energy to the target.

The Browning M2 was a good aerial weapon, which is why it was used up until the Vietnam war as the main armament on US warplanes. The greatest it was not, but it allowed to take a good gun and put alot of them in the same aircraft therefore increasing rof and chances of hitting the target. It simplified logistics and pilot gunnery.

These are the reasons why they where used exclusively by US aircraft througout the war, not because it was an awesome, but because it did the job and made alot of other surrounding issues simpler.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

Cragger
06-17-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
No, it's just that Brewster sucked in real life even worse than it does in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you would even begin to show some ability of self research before making that statement you would realize that the B-239 is not a F2F Buffalo. All models of the F2F had more armor, more accessories, more armament, and much heavier gear than the orgininal F2F/B-239 (Brewster export code) had intended. This made them heavy, underpowered, and have poor flight handling.

The B-239 the Finnish recieved however had none of this as well as additional improvements by the Fins and continued weight reductions.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

WTE_Galway
06-18-2004, 12:22 AM
well, just looking at the rounds themselves (ignoring ROF among other things) it seems like a single .50 cal shell should do damage similiar to the MG 151/15, it is after all just a few mm shy of being called a cannon

but what was the thing about the mk103 ? you call that a cannon ? THIS is a cannon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgDjAk0XtYd3BKw19!arygqA5dMWLcwm4J7gALgcRNNV!o!rv oZ53hcr1hlEz!Kp!e!UzZpAse8R62lTGMCfwyytUamrQjyi0NU PyJt!5K9*jIidhazeJQ/aircraftrounds.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
Just to show how random the game _can_ be.
http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v63/BS87cr/grab0000.jpg

In that shot, ALL of those arrows are from the .50s from my P38. The plane flew on for about 5 minutes, until i popped it with a 20mm.

On the other hand, if needed i can provide pictures where 4-7 hit completly carve up the plane, sending it to the ground.

The game is random, sometimes it takes 4 .50s, sometimes it takes tons. Sometimes it takes 1 mk108, sometimes it takes 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Interesting pic...

What of the arrows that are not on the horizontal plane? Are they like the JFK magic bullet, spinning through the fuselage hitting important thing and eventually making the 109 gunsight fall off? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You're right, it is random but if you average out how many hits a plane takes before it's trashed, then 4-6 still has to be too many to take down a P47 (using the Spit pic as a damage metric).

Of course, what we both don't know is the 'combat status' of a 109 with that many .50 hits or a P47 with 2-3 Mk108 hits. Maybe they do keep flying but whether they are able to fight still is another matter.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 01:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
gee good one.ya really got me there ha ha ha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif "sarcasm" you think that was bad you should read my post when im sober lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe...I'm just glad I'd had a few to drink when I read it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

BS87
06-18-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Hi,

Interesting pic...

What of the arrows that are not on the horizontal plane? Are they like the JFK magic bullet, spinning through the fuselage hitting important thing and eventually making the 109 gunsight fall off? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they are the ones i missed with from dead 6, so they went ahead of the 109, swung around and came back http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Actually i had made several unsucessful headon/high angle passes on it before a 47 wrangled it down low and i could shoot it up. Yes, it probably would have been scraped upon landing, as would a jug with 4-5 mk108 hits. Trust me i fly the jug often, and after 2 mk108 hits, if you are still flying, you can feel the effects. It may look like just a fuel leak, but its not http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I do see where you're coming from though, and this game is random. The 30mm loadout isnt all 100% HE though. Hopefully it will become un-porked so as to give american whiners and luft whienrs more to argure over http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Indianer.
06-18-2004, 01:12 PM
I put 163 .50 rounds from my P40 into a 109 on warclouds today at a range of approximately 75-100m and what happened...........

A trail of white smoke!


Work that out.

http://www.fighter-collection.com/film/img/dark_blue_world.jpg

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

BS87
06-18-2004, 01:23 PM
How do you know you put exactly 163 rounds, on target, hitting his plane?

Indianer.
06-18-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
How do you know you put exactly 163 rounds, on target, hitting his plane?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can type &lt;gunstat into the console and it tells u how many rounds fired, how many hit and how many missed.

Nice feature.

http://www.fighter-collection.com/film/img/dark_blue_world.jpg

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

Hoarmurath
06-18-2004, 01:29 PM
so it was your first target indianer? you know these stats are for all the time you were in the server?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Indianer.
06-18-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
so it was your first target indianer? you know these stats are for all the time you were in the server?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


rgr that m8, just came back from a deathkick. I i had previously emptied quite a few rounds into a 109 with virtually no damage so ater i came back in i deceided to see how many hits i got next time i used the .50s. It just so happened that I shot at him for a long while with no real result.

I'm not saying this is always the case because when i deflection shoot on 109s i can get quite a nice fire going. I managed to shoot down 4 109s the other day in one sortie so they cant be that bad.

On this occasion he climbed up and i followed him and as he almost stalled we both kinda hung in mid-air and i just emptied my .50s into his 6 for what seemed like ages with no pilot kill, fire, wing off.

I guess it just depends on which angle hit hit from, deflection shooting seems like the way to go.

http://www.fighter-collection.com/film/img/dark_blue_world.jpg

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

1.JaVA_Razer
06-18-2004, 02:05 PM
I wish people would stop posting the picture with the bullets,everyone knows it already,I know yur 108's and 103's arte the biggest of the pile,but that means nothing. Btw do you lack some size elsewhere that you need to add a supplement being a cannon?(poor underpowerd you,I pitty yur wife/girlfrend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Size means nothing
only thing it CAN mean is how much HE they put in those things,thats all.
It ALL depends on speed the thing hits your plane with, on from how far the bullet was launched
from 1000 meters,that mk 103 might just bounce off human skin(well better make that 1300 meters)

SO it depends on:
-Where you hit, with what speed and with how many.

I don't remeber anyone here saying .50 cals where laserguns.

Ow and btw,that guncam footage,don't know whos aid it,but the "see how many tracers" don't mean anything.

the one moment you seem to be seing bullet per bullet fly,and at the end yous ee a stream of bullets flying in a straight line to the target http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and also, most people bailed out because piping/wiring was hit,not because their wing had a life of it's own/ their fueltank blew up(except the zeros) or their engine frieng all of a sudden.

Most thigns where fuel pressuze, fuel leaks, rudders shot up...

but in a game people don't care for their life thats the problem

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

Indianer.
06-18-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and also, most people bailed out because piping/wiring was hit
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


......and they s**t themselves.

http://www.fighter-collection.com/film/img/dark_blue_world.jpg

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

Blutarski2004
06-18-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It has insane penetration, you hit a person with a .50 caliber round in the chest and there will be nothing but pieces.in hell...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull****, A .50 Ball, API, or Tracer round is going to go in one side of a flesh target and out the other. It will leave approximate .5 entry wound and probably a exit wound you can fit a softball in. It WILL NOT do what you describe. A 17th century Ball musket round was far more destructive to human tissue with much less penetration. Overpenetration leads to less damage on a tissue target because the round does not impart all its energy to the target.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... A 50cal round striking a body is fully capable of removing an arm, leg, or head. One report out of Iraq tells of a 50cal sniper round severing an entire torso. I understand the argument you seek to make about high speed rounds tending to passthrough cleanly, but a 50cal round delivers a awesome amount of energy compared to a simple medium velocity assault rifle caliber round. Even if a relatively small percentage of that energy is converted to wound formation and/or hydrostatic shock the effect will be quite awful. WW2 reports testify to the devastating effect of 50cal fire against exposed infantry.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-18-2004, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yup, me and the Brewster aircraft works are both wrong. An established military aircraft plant that managed to go belly up right in the middle of a war. Must have worked the employees to death trying to keep capacity up./QUOTE]


..... Basing an appraisal of US wartime production activity on the experience of Brewster Aircraft alone is foolish. I suggest that you do a bit more reading on the topic before posting such inaccurate speculations. For example, you might like to look into the experience of Quincy shipyard in MA. Built in 6 months upon a harborside mudflat, it ran triple shifts around the clock for three years solid. It is one of probably thousands of such industrial stories from WW2.

BLUTARSKI

RedDeth
06-18-2004, 02:29 PM
yea that clean hole theory is horse muckey. total baloney. in ww2 p47s always strafed the german horse carts...there were tons of them . and the 50cals when hitting the horses would toss them 20 feet straight up into the air.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 03:03 PM
I have seen a lot of footage of P-47's straifing horse drawn carraged during the P-47 show on Wings Channel. I dont remeber them being knocked 20 feet in the air till the ammo in the carrage it was pulling when off. They did jerk around a lot, but not get thrown.

Also, Jap aluminum was very brittle. The .50 cal bullete would shatter a main wing spar. You see this often on Pacific gun-cam footage. Wings just clipping off without an explosion from the fuel tanks, and wings that would explode from the fuel tanks. I dont think German aluminum had that problem, and they did not tend to store fuel in the wings. But a 1/2" hole in a main wing spar will degrade its structure quite a bit. Add that a few more, and its not going to take a high-g turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
yea that clean hole theory is horse muckey. total baloney. in ww2 p47s always strafed the german horse carts...there were tons of them . and the 50cals when hitting the horses would toss them 20 feet straight up into the air.

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BfHeFwMe
06-18-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Yup, me and the Brewster aircraft works are both wrong. An established military aircraft plant that managed to go belly up right in the middle of a war. Must have worked the employees to death trying to keep capacity up./QUOTE]


..... Basing an appraisal of US wartime production activity on the experience of Brewster Aircraft alone is foolish. I suggest that you do a bit more reading on the topic before posting such inaccurate speculations. For example, you might like to look into the experience of Quincy shipyard in MA. Built in 6 months upon a harborside mudflat, it ran triple shifts around the clock for three years solid. It is one of probably thousands of such industrial stories from WW2.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The argument was made the US was too pegged out to swap weapons systems and it was more conveniant to stick with the .50's, which is bull. If we were so pegged out and on such a high war footing, how the hell can you explain the immediate implemenatation of the Marshall plan? You'd better try looking at some history books yourself.

Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union were on a total war economy, their infrastructure was exhausted, tooling worn out, roads and bridges worn or in ruins, communications and transport systems shattered. Nothing even comparable ever happened here, don't be silly.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2004, 03:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
The argument was made the US was too pegged out to swap weapons systems and it was more conveniant to stick with the .50's, which is bull.

..... The decision to retain the 50cal MG was based upon the very same reasons that the US opted to continue production of the M4 Sherman tank. Both were proven and reliable designs which were perceived at the time to have been sufficient for the purpose at hand. To stop and attempt to change over to new designs would have interrupted the vast mass weapon production programs under way.


If we were so pegged out and on such a high war footing, how the hell can you explain the immediate implemenatation of the Marshall plan? You'd better try looking at some history books yourself.

..... The Marshall Plan was implemented AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER. Hence, war production was NO LONGER NECESSARY. I trust that you can grasp the relationship between the two factors.


Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union were on a total war economy, their infrastructure was exhausted, tooling worn out, roads and bridges worn or in ruins, communications and transport systems shattered. Nothing even comparable ever happened here, don't be silly.

..... This is the first correct statement you have made in this entire exchange. If American industry was just coasting along through the war years, as you assert, please explain why gas, rubber, and even food were strictly rationed throughout the war years; why metal collection drives were commonplace throughout the war; why millions of women were hired to work in American heavy industry for the first time in history; why NO civilian automobiles were produced during the years 1942 through 1945.

Thousands of factories, shipyards, and other production facilities, which had never existed before, were constructed in a mad rush. Long Island NY was a rural farming region until Grumman Aircraft built a gigantic manufacturing facility there. The reason why Boeing is located in Washington State is because a huge manufacturing facility was constructed there, where no such manufacturing had ever existed before. There was NO aircraft manufacturing industry whatsoever in California before the war; after the war it was one of the world's leading producers of aircraft.

Chrysler, Ford, GM, International Harvester, and a number of other such heavy industrial firms had to build new factories all over the nation to meet demand for military vehicles.
Likewise the shipbuilding and chemical industries.

These are not symptoms of a relaxed industrial base coasting along through the war years. To think that anyone could actually believe such a thing is incredible to me. It has been a number of years since I researched the data, but I suggest that you simply compare pre-war US economic numbers to those of the war years. I assume that you have some reasonable degree of reading comprehension. You can find such books at your local library.

Or maybe you are just another stupid troll.

BLUTARSKI

BfHeFwMe
06-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Tut tut, name calling already, shame on you.

Exactly how would they have implimented the Marshall plan with the war still going on, seriously........ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

US economy never reached anywhere near a total war footing, face it. Most of the rationing was never needed or necessary, these were political decisions, not out of necessity. Sure, certain industries kicked into higher gear, but there was a huge capacity to do much much much more as the Marshall plan proved.

Had they 'wished' to trade the .50 for another system, wouldn't have been a major problem. Marine Corp started the war off with the Johnson automatic as it's choice of rifle, didn't see them stick with it since it sucked.

They stuck with .50 simply because they worked, and well. Not because they couldn't swap to something better fast enough.

FI WILLIE
06-18-2004, 04:33 PM
Fascinating reading and conjecturing. The 50M2 is a pretty tough customer. As for sawing people in half, I've never seen it. Can't say it hasn't happened,can't say it wouldn't happen either. It is ballistically stable enough to hit and KILL and man sized target at 2 miles. I have seen chunks of dirt/mud etc the size of your head launched skyward with great enthusiasm from a 50M2. I have fooled with a quad 50 and seen how much stuff those things can evaporate in short order and can imagine adding 2 more to the mix and watching aluminum stuff fall apart even faster. I have also fooled around with SEVERAL Ma Dueces and torn up a lot of stuff with them.

I fear a lot of the conjecture about this blowing up that better than those is due to HOLLYWOOD ballisticians. EVERY bad guy I ever saw get smoked, NEVER got blown backwards through walls etc(unless there was some serious HE introduced into the mix). Most all of 'em just fell over. Some fell toward the gunner.

I don't have any experience shooting down WWII aircraft myself. My old B-17 driver buddy died on me a while back so I can't ask him.

All I can say, is ENJOY the best flight sim on the planet and if you really want to do something constructive, rather than gripe about such stuff as this, try PICKING THE FLY S**T OUT OF THE PEPPER!

I'll go back to my room now.

Slan'
Willie
USN service in Viet Nam
Wardog (service in some strange, very warm places)

Blutarski2004
06-18-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Tut tut, name calling already, shame on you.

Exactly how would they have implimented the Marshall plan with the war still going on, seriously........ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

US economy never reached anywhere near a total war footing, face it. Most of the rationing was never needed or necessary, these were political decisions, not out of necessity. Sure, certain industries kicked into higher gear, but there was a huge capacity to do much much much more as the Marshall plan proved.

Had they 'wished' to trade the .50 for another system, wouldn't have been a major problem. Marine Corp started the war off with the Johnson automatic as it's choice of rifle, didn't see them stick with it since it sucked.

They stuck with .50 simply because they worked, and well. Not because they couldn't swap to something better fast enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... you have confirmed my suspicions. Goodbye Mr Troll.

BLUTARSKI

BfHeFwMe
06-18-2004, 04:58 PM
Now now, no need to take your toys and go home mad. The whole argument about the .50's being marginal or questionable at the time can be debunked with one word, Korea.

If it was so crappy, why was it still the primary weapon in a war ten years later? Perhaps they didn't have the resources to swap it out......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 05:05 PM
Sorry, but the M2 .50 cal was out-dated at Korea. F-86 and F-80 pilots were crying out for something more powerful. Korea was the turning point of airial gunnery and weapons for US. In WWII the US did not face heavy bombers or well armored fighters so .50 cal was very well suited and it increased your likleyhoot of hitting. In Korea, jets were a LOT more durable and damage resistant. P-80's came home with 37MM hits in them. One P-80 slammed into the ground on a straifing run and actually flew home!!! A little heaver due to the dirt and soil lodged in his wheel wells. P-80 and F-86 pilots often complained about unloading there entire ammo load on a Mig with little effect. But Ya's and LA-9's were still going down easy.

But the .50 cal is still a very effective anti-vehicle weapon today shooting steele cars and armored vehicle's. Im sure they did great against WWII grade aircraft aluminum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Now now, no need to take your toys and go home mad. The whole argument about the .50's being marginal or questionable at the time can be debunked with one word, Korea.

If it was so crappy, why was it still the primary weapon in a war ten years later? Perhaps they didn't have the resources to swap it out......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

HellToupee
06-18-2004, 06:29 PM
fw190s wernt known for being weak.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

brimigus
06-18-2004, 08:28 PM
sure thing that can be said about the 50 cals is,if your not close dont pull the trigger.So if your damage comparisons are from online play thats were the real problem is.just about every planes going 450 mph and its real hard to get up tight under the tail of any enemy,so most of the time your fireing from about 300 yards and might as well be shoting spit wads.get a 109 with wing cannons and the range is no problem up to about 500 yards.If you can close to about 200 yards or less and have the convergence set between 180 to 250 yards and can get at least a 2 seconds spray on the bogie they will make quite a nice fireball for you to dodge.

civildog
06-18-2004, 10:56 PM
Jeez Looeeze! I always get a kick out of all the griping about the .50 not being powerful enough. Ya know, the ball ammo didn't explode and just a hardball slug passing through sheet metal and / or wood isn't going to cause much more than a neat hole. It ain't like hitting ballistic gelatin or a body. You don't get hydrostatic expansion or bones being shattered, let alone the same energy dump as in a body.

The cannon rounds generally go BOOM, that's why they casue so much more catastrophic damage in the game. The bigger the shell the bigger the boom. That's why I love the 37mm in the Cobras. But I've also knocked the engine right off a JU-88's mounts with a quick blip of the .50's. And I think that sort of thing is spot on for a supersonic (the round was supersonic, that's why the x-1 was modelled after it, they knew that bullet went mach+) slug that's non-explosive but heavy.
With six or four of the beasties I've sawn the wings off Heinkels and 109's alike. And just as often don't see any effect at all. I'm man enough to admit I miss a lot though and don't blame the guns.
I think rather than whine and all about these SIMULATED weapons we might want to pause and remember that this is a GAME. The poor bastards in the guncamera footage were playing for keeps. They just had their plane smacked by real bullets and either bailed out so they could go home or had burning fuel splashed all over them by the "insane penetration" and incendiary tracers igniting the fumes. They went down screaming and banging at jammed canopies in the real life equivalent of the effect you fifty-whiners think should happen every time you pull the trigger.
Lastly, I think the real reason they seemed so much more effective in real life was that you tend to concentrate your aim a lot more when you know if you miss you might die.
I'm done with my rant now. I've read this kind of whining about this subject for so long I couldn't not say something this time.

jtasker
06-19-2004, 04:14 AM
US Development was ased on NEED..

Had the .50 cal proven to be less than effective against fighter aircraft, then a different solution would have been found.. It wasn't needed.. simple as that. Post war Jets started out as .50 cal armed until it was found that the speeds and short times a target could be tracked required more weight on target quickly.. hence the switch to cannons..

Fishu
06-19-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
Size means nothing
only thing it CAN mean is how much HE they put in those things,thats all.
It ALL depends on speed the thing hits your plane with, on from how far the bullet was launched
from 1000 meters,that mk 103 might just bounce off human skin(well better make that 1300 meters)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MK103? that definately wouldn't bounce off human skin, neither would MK108 with lower velocity.
There is thing called mass, which helps to retain the energy at lower velocities.
Generally heavier projectile will have better penetration over distance than lighter projectile, even if heavier projectile has far inferior velocity.

Thats somewhat easily illustrated with german 3.7cm L/45 KwK 36 and 7.5cm L/24 KwK 37.
KwK 36 has velocity of 763m/s and KwK 37 has 385m/s.
Both guns have quite closely same penetration at close range, but as the range increases, KwK 37 will retain its penetration power better than KwK 36.
As an interesting tidbit, KwK 37 HE round can penetrate armour nearly just as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
KwK 37 projectile is also more accurate!
Higher ballistic arc might make it harder to aim, but the projectile itself is more accurate.

Prof.Wizard
06-19-2004, 07:16 AM
Gibbage thank you for modelling the X-Wing for us!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/thefarcebewithyou.jpg

... and leaving the Do-335 out. Who cares about Luftwhiners!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

FI WILLIE
06-19-2004, 09:51 AM
"I always get a kick out of all the griping about the .50 not being powerful enough. Ya know, the ball ammo didn't explode and just a hardball slug passing through sheet metal and / or wood isn't going to cause much more than a neat hole. "

Interesting concept. I have seen a LOT of the aforementioned rounds do other than pass cleanly through leaving a .5" diameter hole. That slug, which weighs 1744grains and is 58.7MM (2.31") in length can create a LOT of mayhem when it turns and tumbles (keyholes). Also there is the secondary projectile damage factor from the little bits of whatever it passed through going off on their merry way to create more minor amounts of mayhem.

I have seen men (quite dead) "nailed" to trees by splinters from other trees that were blown out of "other trees" by 50's and Mini guns. That "energy" is imparted into whatever it hits. I agree a tree is more substantial than most plane wings and will absorb/dissipate the energy from thos big slugs.

I have watched (I'm sure you guys have to) a LOT of the gun cam films of the 50's making a locomotive look like swiss cheese as well. I don't think anybody will argue that steam locomotive is a flimsy contrivance by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen exit holes in engine blocks left by 50's that you can stick your head in as well.

Prof.Wizard
06-20-2004, 02:53 AM
The .50s power lies in their number not their punch. If a 12.7mm (.50) gun is simulated in IL2 to destroy anything with 5-10 rounds then you'have to upgrade the 30mm MK108/103 to obliterate the plane with one hit... which isn't always the case now.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Hoarmurath
06-20-2004, 03:13 AM
the 2.01 .50 MG have enough punch to make four of them capable of bringing down one of the toughest planes in FB

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/puny50.zip

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

WWMaxGunz
06-20-2004, 05:08 AM
It depends on where you hit! These are PLANES not TANKS fercryinoutloud!
Planes with light armor on some parts only. With hot engines with hot,
volatile and inflammable liquids in easily damaged lines about them and
channels inside. With fuel tanks that hey, some of those bullets named
incendiary actually do start fires. With oftentimes explosives in the
form of bombs and rocket warheads underneath and sometimes inside...

Then there's other shots where a bullet won't cause much damage without
a lot of its brothers helping. It shouldn't take too many direct hits to
weaken or crack a wing spar. If there's only one spar then the wing may
just fold right then. The trick is actually hitting enough close enough.

50 cals are not freaking BB's. They hit like sledgehammers and chisels,
the armor piercing ones. Same goes for 12.7mm, 13mm, and 15mm. Even
the .303, 7.92 and 7.62 are not something you want hitting from even medium
range.

Some people are thinking maybe game balance? Bigger shot doesn't mean
always bigger hit. It means that if the place hit would stop a smaller
shot, this one may well go through. If the smaller one doesn't crack or
dent, this one may make a hole or smash through. But there are plenty of
parts the plane needs that ANY bullet can destroy if fired from close
enough and for a 12.5mm class bullet that range is pretty considerable.


Neal

FliegerAas
06-20-2004, 06:40 PM
I've seen cal .50 in real life and it indeed has good firepower but in this discussions people often forget that not every round that hits a plane really goes through the hull. When firing at a plane it is not the same as firing at a stationary object. Many bullets hit the plane with a flat angle and because cal .50's have no explosive power they will do no damage.

I just wanted to mention this.....

P.S.: I once saw a pic of one 109 where the text sayd that it got under cal .50 fire. It had some holes and some bumps on the hull.
It's a pitty I don't remember where I saw this... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243